From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable take 2
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:07:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46D769C1.8090808@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070830.173912.79067694.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller wrote:
> From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>>Enable configuration of the minimum TCP Retransmission Timeout via
>>a new sysctl "tcp_rto_min" to help those who's networks (eg cellular)
>>have quite variable RTTs avoid spurrious RTOs.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
>>Signed-off-by: Lamont Jones <lamont@hp.com>
>
>
> Thanks for doing this work Rick.
>
> But as John Heffner and I both mentioned, it's pretty clear we should
> do this as a routing metric. Both for handling realistic scenerios
> where the sysctl doesn't work, and to help prevent misuse (example:
> someone decides that it would be _totally_ _awesome_ for "Carrier
> Grade Linux" to set this to 3 seconds by default in /etc/sysctl.conf
> and crap like that).
If nothing else it was worth the practice :) I'll be happy with either
mechanism, just wasn't sure if the jury was still out on whether making
it a routing metric was really necessary. I can see where it would be
goodness if one had separate paths out of a system, one with the highly
variable RTT and one with non-trivial loss rates, just that thusfar I've
not come across any :) I've only seen one path with high RTT
variability and the other path with trivial loss rates.
Also, not surprisingly, the folks for whom I'm doing this are a triffle
"anxious" so I figured that simplicity was worthwhile. Particularly if
it was going to be the case those folks were going to be asking for
back-ports.
Anyhow, I'll try grubbing around the source code (already doing that to
see about writing a pet tcp cong module) but if pointers to the likely
relevant files were available I could try to help thrash-out the routing
metric version. Like I said the consumers of this are a triffle well,
"anxious" :)
rick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-31 1:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-31 0:09 [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable take 2 Rick Jones
2007-08-31 0:39 ` David Miller
2007-08-31 1:07 ` Rick Jones [this message]
2007-08-31 4:52 ` John Heffner
2007-08-31 17:19 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-31 5:09 ` David Miller
2007-08-31 18:11 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-31 18:57 ` David Miller
2007-08-31 20:59 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-31 21:38 ` David Miller
2007-08-31 22:20 ` Rick Jones
2007-08-31 22:24 ` David Miller
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=46D769C1.8090808@hp.com \
--to=rick.jones2@hp.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--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).