From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kelly Burkhart" Subject: Re: high latency with TCP connections Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:22:09 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20060830100734.GA22235@isil.ipib.msu.ru> <20060830102727.11e11453@localhost.localdomain> <20060830.143955.55510936.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@osdl.org, alex@sectorb.msk.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:10900 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932410AbWHaSWL (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:22:11 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so636143ugc for ; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:22:10 -0700 (PDT) To: "David Miller" In-Reply-To: <20060830.143955.55510936.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 8/30/06, David Miller wrote: > From: Stephen Hemminger > > Expecting any performance with one byte write's is silly. > > This is absolutely true. TCP_NODELAY can only save you when you are > sending a small amount of data "in aggregate", such as in an SSH or > telnet session, whereas in the case being shown here a large amount of > data is being sent in small chunks which will always get bad > performance. The word performance in this list seems to always mean 'throughput'. It seems though that there could be some knob to tweak for those of us who don't care so much about throughput but care a great deal about latency. -K