From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Subject: Re: tcp bw in 2.6 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:36:44 -0700 Message-ID: <20071002223644.GA14331@bitmover.com> References: <20071002212608.GG29944@bitmover.com> <20071002.144709.123999983.davem@davemloft.net> <4702C37F.4030601@hp.com> <20071002.153216.82129058.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: rick.jones2@hp.com, lm@bitmover.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, wscott@bitmover.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:44075 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752116AbXJBWgo (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:36:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071002.153216.82129058.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 03:32:16PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > I'm starting to have a theory about what the bad case might > be. > > A strong sender going to an even stronger receiver which can > pull out packets into the process as fast as they arrive. > This might be part of what keeps the receive window from > growing. I can back you up on that. When I straced the receiving side that goes slowly, all the reads were short, like 1-2K. The way that works the reads were a lot larger as I recall. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com