From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@axis.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: rick.jones2@hp.com, ian.mcdonald@jandi.co.nz, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:53:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070829225300.GA15652@edgar.underground.se.axis.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070829.153503.18295527.davem@davemloft.net>
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:35:03PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:29:03 -0700
>
> > David Miller wrote:
> > > None of the research folks want to commit to saying a lower value is
> > > OK, even though it's quite clear that on a local 10 gigabit link a
> > > minimum value of even 200 is absolutely and positively absurd.
> > >
> > > So what do these cellphone network people want to do, increate the
> > > minimum RTO or increase it? Exactly how does it help them?
> >
> > They want to increase it. The folks who triggered this want to make it
> > 3 seconds to avoid spurrious RTOs. Their experience the "other
> > platform" they widh to replace suggests that 3 seconds is a good value
> > for their network.
> >
> > > If the issue is wireless loss, algorithms like FRTO might help them,
> > > because FRTO tries to make a distinction between capacity losses
> > > (which should adjust cwnd) and radio losses (which are not capacity
> > > based and therefore should not affect cwnd).
> >
> > I was looking at that. FRTO seems only to affect the cwnd calculations,
> > and not the RTO calculation, so it seems to "deal with" spurrious RTOs
> > rather than preclude them. There is a strong desire here to not have
> > spurrious RTO's in the first place. Each spurrious retransmission will
> > increase a user's charges.
>
> All of this seems to suggest that the RTO calculation is wrong.
>
> It seems that packets in this network can be delayed several orders of
> magnitude longer than the usual round trip as measured by TCP.
>
> What exactly causes such a huge delay? What is the TCP measured RTO
> in these circumstances where spurious RTOs happen and a 3 second
> minimum RTO makes things better?
I don't know what they are doing, but it reminds me of what happens when
you run TCP over a reliable medium. You don't see loss, instead the
RTT starts to jitter alot.
IIRC FRTO does help avoid unnecessary retransmits (although the RTO still
hits).
Best regards
--
Programmer
Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@axis.com> 46.46.272.1946
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-29 23:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-29 20:52 [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable Rick Jones
2007-08-29 21:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-08-29 22:11 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-29 21:32 ` Ian McDonald
2007-08-29 21:46 ` David Miller
2007-08-29 22:10 ` Ian McDonald
2007-08-29 22:23 ` David Miller
2007-08-29 22:13 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-08-29 22:28 ` David Miller
2007-08-29 22:51 ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-08-29 22:58 ` NCR, was " John Heffner
2007-08-29 22:59 ` David Miller
2007-08-29 22:32 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-29 22:29 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-29 22:35 ` David Miller
2007-08-29 22:48 ` John Heffner
2007-08-29 22:52 ` John Heffner
2007-08-29 22:53 ` Edgar E. Iglesias [this message]
2007-08-29 23:06 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-29 23:15 ` David Miller
2007-08-29 23:31 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-30 5:22 ` Krishna Kumar2
2007-08-30 17:10 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-29 23:44 ` John Heffner
2007-09-05 19:04 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2007-09-06 20:39 ` David Miller
2007-08-29 22:09 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-29 22:20 ` David Miller
2007-08-29 22:33 ` Ian McDonald
2007-08-29 22:37 ` David Miller
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=20070829225300.GA15652@edgar.underground.se.axis.com \
--to=edgar.iglesias@axis.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ian.mcdonald@jandi.co.nz \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rick.jones2@hp.com \
/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).