From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alejandro Riveira =?UTF-8?B?RmVybsOhbmRleg==?= Subject: Re: Loopback and Nagle's algorithm Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:42:10 +0200 Message-ID: <20110412114210.65f202cc@varda> References: <1302575869.13492.1440076201@webmail.messagingengine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Adam McLaurin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1302575869.13492.1440076201@webmail.messagingengine.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org El Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:37:49 -0400 "Adam McLaurin" escribi=C3=B3: Just CCing netdev > I understand that disabling Nagle's algorithm via TCP_NODELAY will > generally degrade throughput. However, in my scenario (150 byte > messages, sending as fast as possible), the actual throughput penalty > over the network is marginal (maybe 10% at most). >=20 > However, when I disable Nagle's algorithm when connecting over loopba= ck, > the performance hit is *huge* - 10x reduction in throughput. >=20 > The question is, why is disabling Nagle's algorithm on loopback so mu= ch > worse w.r.t. throughput? Is there anything I can do to reduce the > incurred throughput penalty? >=20 > Thanks, > Adam > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne= l" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/