netdev - Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:21:08 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	johnwheffner@...il.com, rick.jones2@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning

David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:

>> What is your interface txqueuelen and mtu?  If you have a very large
>> interface queue, TCP will happily fill it up unless you are using a
>> delay-based congestion controller.
>
> Yes, that's the fundamental problem with loss based congestion
> control.  If there are any queues in the path, TCP will fill them up.

That just means Linux does too much queueing by default.  Perhaps that
should be fixed. On Ethernet hardware the NIC TX queue should be
usually sufficient anyways I would guess. Do we really need the long
qdisc queue too?

-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html