From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Baruch Even Subject: Re: [PATCH] [TCP] Sysctl: document tcp_max_ssthresh (Limited Slow-Start) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:42:28 +0300 Message-ID: <464DE584.7030008@ev-en.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , Netdev To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= Return-path: Received: from rrcs-24-123-59-149.central.biz.rr.com ([24.123.59.149]:64003 "EHLO galon.ev-en.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754478AbXERSTp (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2007 14:19:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Ilpo J=E4rvinen wrote: > Signed-off-by: Ilpo J=E4rvinen > --- > Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >=20 > diff --git a/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt b/Documentation/n= etworking/ip-sysctl.txt > index ce16e6a..44ba8d4 100644 > --- a/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt > +++ b/Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt > @@ -239,6 +239,19 @@ tcp_max_orphans - INTEGER > more aggressively. Let me to remind again: each orphan eats > up to ~64K of unswappable memory. > =20 > +tcp_max_ssthresh - INTEGER > + Limited Slow-Start for TCP with Large Congestion Windows defined in > + RFC3742. Limited slow-start is a mechanism to limit grow of the s/grow/growth/ > + congestion window on the region where congestion window is larger t= han > + tcp_max_ssthresh. A TCP connection with a large congestion window c= ould > + have its congestion window increased by thousand (or even more) > + segments per RTT by the traditional slow-start procedure which migh= t be > + counter-productive to TCP performance when packet losses start to > + occur. With limited slow-start TCP increments congestion window at > + most tcp_max_ssthresh/2 segments per RTT when the congestion window= is I'm not a native English speaker but "at most" sounds a bit awkward to me, maybe change it to "by no more than". But I'm sure someone can find a better phrasing. Baruch