public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Neil Spring <nspring@cs.washington.edu>
To: Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Excessive TCP retransmits over lossless, high latency link
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 12:07:02 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010901120702.A30845@cs.washington.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010901181729.A2204@thefinal.cern.ch> <20010901194141.44617@colin.muc.de> <20010901192242.A2714@thefinal.cern.ch>
In-Reply-To: <20010901192242.A2714@thefinal.cern.ch>

> I don't see what is broken about the remote end in this case.

The remote end is probably not broken, at least in this
case.  This looks like an artifact of a disgustingly
large queue, and a very slow link.  When the time to
transmit tiny packets in the initial handshake is much
smaller than the time to transmit a full size frame,
retransmission timers can get confused.  A complete trace
would settle this.

I strongly recommend setting the mtu of your ppp0 interface
down to 576 (or smaller) to reduce the time it takes to
transfer a full size frame, decrease the likelihood that
frames suffer corruption, and allow acknowledgements more
often than every 5 seconds.  This is a setting in your ppp
configuration, don't do this using ifconfig. 

Don't take my word for it, see RFC1144, section 5.2: a
good MTU is chosen so that a full size frame is transferred
in 200ms.

RFC1144, written by Van Jacobson:

   To illustrate, note that for a 9600 bps line with
   header compression there is essentially no benefit
   in increasing the MTU beyond 200 bytes: If the MTU is
   increased to 576, the average delay increases by 188%
   while throughput only improves by 3% (from 96 to 99%).

Besides, if you do what you propose (not ack old data with the 
next byte expected) you risk stalling the connection entirely.

-neil


  reply	other threads:[~2001-09-01 19:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-09-01 17:17 Excessive TCP retransmits over lossless, high latency link Jamie Lokier
2001-09-01 17:41 ` Andi Kleen
2001-09-01 18:12   ` kuznet
2001-09-01 18:22   ` Jamie Lokier
2001-09-01 19:07     ` Neil Spring [this message]
2001-09-01 18:08 ` kuznet
2001-09-01 18:55   ` Jamie Lokier
2001-09-01 19:20     ` kuznet
2001-09-01 20:02       ` Jamie Lokier
2001-09-01 20:39         ` Lukas Beeler
2001-09-03 17:14         ` kuznet
2001-09-03 17:57           ` Jamie Lokier
2001-09-03 18:07             ` kuznet
2001-09-01 19:59 ` Alan Cox
     [not found] <20010901195532.B2714@thefinal.cern.ch.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
     [not found] ` <200109011920.XAA20031@ms2.inr.ac.ru.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
     [not found]   ` <20010901210212.A3361@thefinal.cern.ch.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
     [not found]     ` <20010901223918.A4053@mail.projectdream.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2001-09-01 21:45       ` Andi Kleen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20010901120702.A30845@cs.washington.edu \
    --to=nspring@cs.washington.edu \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox