From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] Customizable TCP backoff patch Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060927.190601.26530992.davem@davemloft.net> References: <451AC889.5000407@redhat.com> <20060927.161638.62343616.davem@davemloft.net> <20060927160044.68ffca2e@freekitty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: woodard@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mgrondona@llnl.gov, behlendorf1@llnl.gov Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:65003 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965193AbWI1CGD (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:06:03 -0400 To: shemminger@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <20060927160044.68ffca2e@freekitty> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:00:44 -0700 > On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:16:38 -0700 (PDT) > David Miller wrote: > > > From: Ben Woodard > > Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:52:57 -0700 > > > > > Because these are general utility clusters we run many different > > > programs and so trying to fix this problem in the application is not > > > possible since there are literally hundreds if not thousands of them. > > > > Then why add a socket option setting as your patch does? :-) > > > > I also object to the socket option setting being allowed for > > any user because this can have awful effects if allowed by > > arbitrary users on arbitrary networks. > > Setting a cwnd limit would do the same thing. Not really :-) It would not influence the TCP retransmit timeouts and backoff, although it would influence the congestion window handling during recovery after such timeout based losses.