From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: tune back idle cwnd closing? Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:16:18 -0700 Message-ID: <444FF132.2080505@hp.com> References: <44493980.1040708@oracle.com> <444E31D9.1010705@psc.edu> <20060426.144540.39973302.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jheffner@psc.edu, zach.brown@oracle.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from palrel12.hp.com ([156.153.255.237]:57065 "EHLO palrel12.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964905AbWDZWQV (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:16:21 -0400 To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20060426.144540.39973302.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > When you're bursty application is not sending, other flows can take up > the pipe space you are not using, and you must reprobe to figure that > out. If the "restarted" connection does normal slow-start, one of two things will happen yes? Either it will grow its cwnd to >= the receiver's window, or it will have to stop before then because it triggered a packet loss. In the first case, seems it would have been just as good to let the connection burst. In the second case, is the effect on other connections really any better than if the connection just started-up from where it was before? BTW, is the RFC 2681? I looked that one up on ietf.org and the RFC by that number was a different beast entirely - at least at a very quick glance. rick jones