* Re: FW: Performance evaluation of high speed TCPs [not found] ` <39307.60.44.142.168.1138932213.squirrel@webmail.ncsu.edu> @ 2006-02-03 2:24 ` Douglas Leith 2006-02-03 2:50 ` rhee 2006-02-03 2:51 ` Ian McDonald 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Douglas Leith @ 2006-02-03 2:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rhee; +Cc: netdev, end2end-interest [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 742 bytes --] >Seriously, we can't run the tests for every fix and bug report. Perhaps best to view it as returning a favour. You may recall that we re-ran all our own experimental tests last year (all data and code available online at www.hamilton.ie/net/eval/) on discovering a previously unreported bug introduced by the linux folks when implementing bic. Something similar has happened with importing htcp into linux. Seriously, where's the value in comparing buggy implementations - isn't that just a waste of all our time ? If we are genuine about wanting to understand tcp performance then I think we just have to take the hit from issues such as this that are outside all of our control. Doug Hamilton Institute www.hamilton.ie [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1200 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: FW: Performance evaluation of high speed TCPs 2006-02-03 2:24 ` FW: Performance evaluation of high speed TCPs Douglas Leith @ 2006-02-03 2:50 ` rhee 2006-02-03 14:06 ` Douglas Leith 2006-02-03 2:51 ` Ian McDonald 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: rhee @ 2006-02-03 2:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Douglas Leith; +Cc: netdev, end2end-interest Sure. Your comments about running the buggy implementation are well taken. That is why this type of reporting is helpful and we are committed to keep this effort. Just that it takes time to run the tests, and before we run a new set of tests, we have to do some batch of patches to reduce our effort level (but in this case of the HTCP bug, rest assured that we are running it now..it is just that there are a lot of other things going on that we have to catch a breath a little). Then again, if we don't do the test and keep the report up-to-date then it is difficult to find bugs as well...so these reportings help us find bugs and also improve TCP algorithms. (I hope our report did the same for you). Also sometimes we are not motivated to find the bugs ourselves. In fact, i contacted your student "Baruch" one month and half before we posted our report -- it was CCed in the netdev mailing list as well and we gave him login and passwd on our result website (at that time we were just about to write the report) and we have not heard from your guys until just one week ago. At least we did try to make sure we are running a buggy version. >>Seriously, we can't run the tests for every fix and bug report. > > Perhaps best to view it as returning a favour. You may recall that we > re-ran all our own experimental tests last year (all data and code > available online at www.hamilton.ie/net/eval/) on discovering a previously > unreported bug introduced by the linux folks when implementing bic. > Something similar has happened with importing htcp into linux. > > Seriously, where's the value in comparing buggy implementations - isn't > that just a waste of all our time ? If we are genuine about wanting to > understand tcp performance then I think we just have to take the hit from > issues such as this that are outside all of our control. > > Doug > > Hamilton Institute > www.hamilton.ie > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: FW: Performance evaluation of high speed TCPs 2006-02-03 2:50 ` rhee @ 2006-02-03 14:06 ` Douglas Leith 2006-02-03 20:17 ` rhee 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Douglas Leith @ 2006-02-03 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rhee; +Cc: netdev, end2end-interest [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1262 bytes --] Injong, >In fact, i contacted your student "Baruch" one month and half before we posted our report -- it was CCed in the netdev mailing list as well and we gave him login and passwd on our result website (at that time we were just about to write the report) and we have not heard from your guys until just one week ago. At least we did try to make sure we are running a buggy version. We have no record of receiving such an email. Just a mix-up I guess. Doug >>Seriously, we can't run the tests for every fix and bug report. > > Perhaps best to view it as returning a favour. You may recall that we > re-ran all our own experimental tests last year (all data and code > available online at www.hamilton.ie/net/eval/) on discovering a previously > unreported bug introduced by the linux folks when implementing bic. > Something similar has happened with importing htcp into linux. > > Seriously, where's the value in comparing buggy implementations - isn't > that just a waste of all our time ? If we are genuine about wanting to > understand tcp performance then I think we just have to take the hit from > issues such as this that are outside all of our control. > > Doug > > Hamilton Institute > www.hamilton.ie > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1885 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: FW: Performance evaluation of high speed TCPs 2006-02-03 14:06 ` Douglas Leith @ 2006-02-03 20:17 ` rhee 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: rhee @ 2006-02-03 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Douglas Leith; +Cc: netdev, end2end-interest Let's get off this e2e list for this discussion. It is really unnecessary to use this list for this discussion. I don't understand why you keep sending your email to this list even though we are seating next to each other in the same conference. Isn't this amusing or abusing of this mailing list? :-) -- to others in the list, Doug and I are attending pfldnet in japan now.. > Injong, > >>In fact, i contacted your student "Baruch" one month and half before we >> posted our > report -- it was CCed in the netdev mailing list as well and we gave him > login and > passwd on our result website (at that time we were just about to write the > report) > and we have not heard from your guys until just one week ago. At least we > did try to > make sure we are running a buggy version. > > We have no record of receiving such an email. Just a mix-up I guess. > > Doug > > >>>Seriously, we can't run the tests for every fix and bug report. >> >> Perhaps best to view it as returning a favour. You may recall that we >> re-ran all our own experimental tests last year (all data and code >> available online at www.hamilton.ie/net/eval/) on discovering a >> previously >> unreported bug introduced by the linux folks when implementing bic. >> Something similar has happened with importing htcp into linux. >> >> Seriously, where's the value in comparing buggy implementations - isn't >> that just a waste of all our time ? If we are genuine about wanting to >> understand tcp performance then I think we just have to take the hit >> from >> issues such as this that are outside all of our control. >> >> Doug >> >> Hamilton Institute >> www.hamilton.ie >> > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: FW: Performance evaluation of high speed TCPs 2006-02-03 2:24 ` FW: Performance evaluation of high speed TCPs Douglas Leith 2006-02-03 2:50 ` rhee @ 2006-02-03 2:51 ` Ian McDonald 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Ian McDonald @ 2006-02-03 2:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Douglas Leith; +Cc: netdev, end2end-interest > Seriously, where's the value in comparing buggy implementations - isn't > that just a waste of all our time ? If we are genuine about wanting to > understand tcp performance then I think we just have to take the hit from > issues such as this that are outside all of our control. > A real part of the problem here is that the Linux doesn't have a full TCP testing suite and doesn't have build checking to check for regressions in TCP variants. As I understand the only thing tested in nightly builds is throughput for the default TCP. Stephen Hemminger has done some work on TCP Probes but this is where I think real progress could be made in improving Linux TCP. I may get around to doing this myself at some point in my research but would welcome other people doing it also! Ian -- Ian McDonald http://wand.net.nz/~iam4 WAND Network Research Group University of Waikato New Zealand ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-02-03 20:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <C0FF12BB5B83E44ABAEAA47149DA973508266A@helios.eee.strath.ac.uk>
[not found] ` <C0FF12BB5B83E44ABAEAA47149DA973508266D@helios.eee.strath.ac.uk>
[not found] ` <39307.60.44.142.168.1138932213.squirrel@webmail.ncsu.edu>
2006-02-03 2:24 ` FW: Performance evaluation of high speed TCPs Douglas Leith
2006-02-03 2:50 ` rhee
2006-02-03 14:06 ` Douglas Leith
2006-02-03 20:17 ` rhee
2006-02-03 2:51 ` Ian McDonald
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox