From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: tune back idle cwnd closing? Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:12:32 -0700 Message-ID: <445133C0.9080808@hp.com> References: <444E31D9.1010705@psc.edu> <20060426.144540.39973302.davem@davemloft.net> <445103B5.2090603@psc.edu> <20060427.131921.79333703.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 palrel13.hp.com ([156.153.255.238]:62658 "EHLO palrel13.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751679AbWD0VMf (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:12:35 -0400 To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20060427.131921.79333703.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org having looked now at both 2861 and the 99 paper it references I see lots of "may's" "mights" and "belief" but nothing "real world." the CWV vs non CWV was done against a TCP that did indeed reset cwnd after an RTT of idle, so it wasn't showing reset at idle versus no reset at idle. just CWV's less draconian (?) reset than the non CWV stack. the experimental validation in the 99 paper was still a simulation using dummynet and a number of buffers rather smaller than what modem banks were offering at the time, and it was for a modem, rather than any other sort of link. and when they did use a real modem, the buffering in the modem bank seems to have made the whole thing moot. there was nothing about effect on intranets, or high-speed long hauls or any of that. what that means wrt having a sysctl to enable/disable functionality still listed as experimental i'm not sure rick jones