From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] TCP: increase default initial receive window. Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 21:13:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20101217.211309.226761639.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1292642451-892-1-git-send-email-nanditad@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, therbert@google.com, chavey@google.com, ycheng@google.com To: nanditad@google.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:48745 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750721Ab0LRFMk (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Dec 2010 00:12:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1292642451-892-1-git-send-email-nanditad@google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Nandita Dukkipati Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:20:51 -0800 > This patch changes the default initial receive window to 10 mss > (defined constant). The default window is limited to the maximum > of 10*1460 and 2*mss (when mss > 1460). > > Signed-off-by: Nandita Dukkipati That's an incredibly terse explanation for a very non-trivial change with very non-trivial implications. What analysis have you performed to lead you to decide that this was a reasonable change to make? Where can people see that analysis and look over it to see if they agree with your assesment of the data? We can't apply a patch like that without any form of analysis or reasoning. You don't say "why" you're doing this, and frankly that really ticks me off.