From: "Shigeo N" <shigeonx@gmail.com>
To: "Andi Kleen" <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: XTP for 2.6.25
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:06:11 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <18b669d80804240606n47854939x94278f8d974034c1@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <873apbijb9.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Now I have connected 2 hosts directly, and evaluate the each throughput.
Then all the results of UDP, TCP and XTP are the same and 94Mbps. (My
netwrok is 100Base/TX).
In this case round-trip time between 2 hosts is less than 0.1ms
because they are directly connected. But my previouse case, round-trip
time between 2 hosts are 4ms. (I use IPSEC between the security
gateways to increase delay).
I think that's the reason TCP throughput is slow. If ACK packets are
delayed, sending window cannot slide and sending packets cannot be
fully bursted.
If I changes wmem size through /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_wmem, TCP's
throughput may improve, but congestion control becomes more difficult
for TCP.
That is TCP's disadvantage to XTP.
Best
Shigeo
On 4/24/08, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> "Shigeo N" <shigeonx@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > I tested in the network where UDP throughput is 29Mbps, then TCP
> > throughput was 13Mbps, but XTP's reached to 25Mbps.
>
> One interesting question is why TCP was so much slower than UDP
> on your test. It shouldn't be on a fair test setup.
>
> Please post details. Was the network losing packets?
>
> New protocols might be interesting, but even more interesting is to
> fix any (real) problems in existing protocols.
>
> -Andi
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-24 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <18b669d80804240314t7b2f6e4cpc9a9f2690c6d21b4@mail.gmail.com>
2008-04-24 10:30 ` XTP for 2.6.25 David Miller
2008-04-24 11:26 ` Shigeo N
2008-04-24 11:27 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-24 13:06 ` Shigeo N [this message]
2008-04-25 7:59 ` Shigeo N
2008-04-25 8:23 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2008-04-25 8:28 ` David Miller
2008-04-25 8:51 ` Shigeo N
2008-04-25 8:55 ` David Miller
2008-04-25 13:05 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2008-04-25 20:12 ` David Miller
2008-04-25 21:06 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2008-05-07 4:32 ` Shigeo N
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=18b669d80804240606n47854939x94278f8d974034c1@mail.gmail.com \
--to=shigeonx@gmail.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).