| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <457093C5.1040501@cfl.rr.com> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:42:45 -0500 From: Phillip Susi <psusi@....rr.com> To: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> CC: Matt Garman <matthew.garman@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: What happened to CONFIG_TCP_NAGLE_OFF? Alan wrote: > No it was general purpose. It fixes some extremely bad behaviour in TCP > with congestion well beyond the "telnet" behaviour. Saying it is general purpose demeans it. Nagle was created specifically to deal with the bad behavior that results from IO patterns like those created by telnet. Obviously other applications can exhibit those same patterns. Those that do not, have no need for nagle, so they can benefit from turning it off. > UDP is rarely appropriate because it has no congestion control. There are > more appropriate protocols but they are rarely implemented so TCP > generally gets used. UDP is highly appropriate because the congestion controls and other features of TCP are not required for this type of data, and in fact, tend to muck things up. That is why the application needs to implement its own congestion, sequencing, retransmit and connect/disconnect controls; because the way TCP handles them is not good for this application. People often use TCP because it is easier, but not optimal. - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists