From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Henrik Nordstrom Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:00:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Re: further CBQ/tc documentation ds9a.nl/lartc/manpages Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org On Monday 10 December 2001 12.35, Martin Devera wrote: > Are you sure !? TCP slows down by half on every dropped > packet per congestion window AFAIK. > On other side it is often hard to slow TCP down by packet > delay as TCP will try to accomodate it by making MSS larger. > Am I right jamal ? You basically need both, or your packet drops will constantly be fighting retransmits as TCP is trying to recover. There will eventually be a balance, but not a too nice one. > as I said above, packet dropping works well (at least for me > in the same ISP scenario). > When you are queuing then delay only helps you to postpone > burst of reply data to some less used time. > When bulk traffic persists, packet is droppes and TCP fallbacks > down. Sure, just dropping packets will work to some extent, but not by far as efficient in transmitted data as limited queue with drop on overflow (preferably smarter than FIFO+overflow if you need support more than one concurrent TCP session). Regards Henrik _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/lartc/