From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marian =?utf-8?B?xI51cmtvdmnEjQ==?= Subject: Re: TCP rx window autotuning harmful at LAN context Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:00:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20090310160040.GA93054@bts.sk> References: <20090309195906.M50328@bts.sk> <1e41a3230903091323j541d1895j2eb69b9f9c11f2f3@mail.gmail.com> <20090310104956.GA81181@bts.sk> <20090310.043019.132650585.davem@davemloft.net> <20090310114606.GA84964@bts.sk> <1e41a3230903100823h5d5768d9wb9f36eb294840814@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: John Heffner Return-path: Received: from saus.bts.sk ([194.160.23.4]:55484 "EHLO saus.bts.sk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753932AbZCJQAn (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:00:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1e41a3230903100823h5d5768d9wb9f36eb294840814@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > Yes, but that's actual bandwidth between sender and receiver, not > > the hard BW limit of the receiver's NIC. My intention is just to introduce > > some safety belt preventing autotuning to increase the rx window > > into MB ranges when RTT is very low. > > Nowhere in our proposal do you use NIC bandwidth. What you proposed > can be done easily at the sender. Only if you *absolutely* trust the sender to do everything correctly. That's never the case on global scale - some senders are buggy, some teribly outdated, some incorrectly configured, some using different congestion control scheme... Again, autotuning in its present form removes all safety at the receiver side and allows senders to easily bring LANs down. IMHO we need to fix this before the problem spreads even more. Thanks & kind regards, M.