From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes? Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:58:47 -0800 Message-ID: <41F18927.5020607@hp.com> References: <41F1516D.5010101@hp.com> <200501211358.53783.jdmason@us.ibm.com> <41F163AD.5070400@hp.com> <20050121124441.76cbbfb9.davem@davemloft.net> <41F17B7E.2020002@hp.com> <20050121141820.7d59a2d1.davem@davemloft.net> <41F186A8.9030805@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: To: netdev@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: <41F186A8.9030805@hp.com> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Rick Jones wrote: > That's not to say that we still won't have incentive to set > tcp_tso_win_divisor (shouldn't that really be tcp_tso_cwnd_divisor?) to 1 :) Speaking of divisor values... is zero (0) supposed to be a legal value? The sysctl seems to allow it but it does seem to behave a triffle strangely. The initial TSO size appeared to be 2MSS. It might be rather interesting if a value of zero were to have the effect of ignoring initial cwnd entirely :) It wouldn't be "legal" in the RFC sense, but I suspect it would make for some interesting experimental opportunities. Rather far down on the list though. rick jones