Re: high latency with TCP connections

[Sridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>]

Alexander Vodomerov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 02:39:55PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>   
>>> Expecting any performance with one byte write's is silly.
>>>       
>> This is absolutely true.  TCP_NODELAY can only save you when you are
>> sending a small amount of data "in aggregate", such as in an SSH or
>> telnet session, whereas in the case being shown here a large amount of
>> data is being sent in small chunks which will always get bad
>> performance.
>>     
>
> Information is sent with one byte write's because it is not available at
> the moment of sending (it may be read from hardware device or user). If
> I change 1 to 10 or 100 nothing changes. I'm afraid there is a bit of
> misunderstanding here. Only very small amount of data is being sent over
> network. The total traffic for example I sent is only 10 bytes/s. After
> every 10th packet program does usleep(100000) to simulate pause before
> next available data.
>
> There are really 3 factors:
> 1) total size of information is small
> 2) data for transferring is arrived by small portions from external
> source
> 3) it is very important that any portion should be delivered to receiver
> as soon as possible.
> Is TCP is good choice for such transfer or some other protocol is better
> suited?
>   
If message boundary preservation is a useful feature for your app, you 
could try SCTP.
You should be able to do this by replacing IPPROTO_TCP with IPPROTO_SCTP and
TCP_NODELAY with SCTP_NODELAY.

Thanks
Sridhar
> With best regards,
>    Alexander.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>