From: "Piotr Sawuk" <a9702387@unet.univie.ac.at>
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: resurrecting tcphealth
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:17:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3e426bd471b8a54bfa5320f05e88e635.squirrel@webmail.univie.ac.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1342336597.3265.10617.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
On So, 15.07.2012, 09:16, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 01:43 +0200, Piotr Sawuk wrote:
>
>> oh, and again I recommend the really short although outdated thesis
>>
>> [1] https://sacerdoti.org/tcphealth/tcphealth-paper.pdf
>
> A thesis saying SACK are not useful is highly suspect.
>
> Instead of finding why they behave not so good and fix the bugs, just
> say "SACK addition to TCP is not critical"
the actual quotation is "We also found that the number of unnecessary
duplicate packets were quite small potentially indicating that the SACK
addition to TCP is not critical."
>
> Really ?
no, not really. he he actually said that SACK has been made mostly obsolete
by "Linux 2.2 implements fast retransmits for up to two packet gaps, thus
reducing the need for course grained timeouts due to the lack of SACK." and
he was a bit more careful and admitted that further tests with tcphealth are
needed to check if SACK really makes that big a difference. he admitted "It
could be that SACK's advantage lies in other areas such as very large
downloads or when using slow and unreliable network links." all these things
could be checked again nowadays, with larger files available and wlan-users
and higher traffic -- just find something without SACK...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-15 9:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-12 20:55 resurrecting tcphealth Piotr Sawuk
2012-07-12 21:35 ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-07-12 22:29 ` Randy Dunlap
2012-07-14 21:48 ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-07-14 23:43 ` Piotr Sawuk
2012-07-15 7:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-15 9:17 ` Piotr Sawuk [this message]
2012-07-15 9:53 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-15 22:17 ` Piotr Sawuk
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-07-13 7:33 Piotr Sawuk
2012-07-13 23:55 ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-07-14 1:31 ` valdis.kletnieks
2012-07-16 11:33 ` Piotr Sawuk
2012-07-16 11:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-16 13:03 ` Piotr Sawuk
2012-07-20 14:06 ` Yuchung Cheng
2012-07-21 10:34 ` Piotr Sawuk
2012-07-14 7:56 Piotr Sawuk
2012-07-14 8:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-14 19:29 ` David Miller
2012-07-16 13:32 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-16 15:12 ` Piotr Sawuk
2012-07-16 15:24 ` Christoph Paasch
2012-07-19 10:37 ` Piotr Sawuk
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=3e426bd471b8a54bfa5320f05e88e635.squirrel@webmail.univie.ac.at \
--to=a9702387@unet.univie.ac.at \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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).