From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Heffner Subject: Re: SACK scoreboard Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:56:16 -0500 Message-ID: <4784E090.8080303@psc.edu> References: <20080108.144456.173014334.davem@davemloft.net> <47844D1C.1060706@psc.edu> <20080108.224144.234253941.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: andi@firstfloor.org, ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi, lachlan.andrew@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, quetchen@caltech.edu To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mailer2.psc.edu ([128.182.66.106]:62111 "EHLO mailer2.psc.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751257AbYAIO4d (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:56:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080108.224144.234253941.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: John Heffner > Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:27:08 -0500 > >> I also wonder how much of a problem this is (for now, with window sizes >> of order 10000 packets. My understanding is that the biggest problems >> arise from O(N^2) time for recovery because every ack was expensive. >> Have current tests shown the final ack to be a major source of problems? > > Yes, several people have reported this. I may have missed some of this. Does anyone have a link to some recent data? -John