linux-kernel - Re: UDP packets loss

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]

Message-ID: <20061116235223.78f13473@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:52:23 +0000
From:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	eli@....mellanox.co.il
Cc:	eli@....mellanox.co.il, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-net@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: UDP packets loss

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:51:37 +0200 (IST)
eli@....mellanox.co.il wrote:

> eventually slow the whole thing to a rate such all parts can handle. But
> is there a way to overcome this situation and to avoid packets drop? If
> this would happen then TCP would work at higher rates as well?? Perhaps
> increase buffers sizes?

Increased buffer sizes can actually paradoxically make the situation
worse. Van Jacobson once claimed that those who do not understand TCP are
doomed to re-invent it.

If you have a very controlled environment then there are alternative flow
control approaches including counting approaches when you know the
underlying transport is basically reliable (or you can tolerate minor
loss). That's roughly speaking the equivalent of TCP with fixed windows
and knowing that the buffering worst cases are the end points.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/