netdev - Re: iproute2-2.6.20-070313 bug ?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46028335.3030402@trash.net>
Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:23:01 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Denys <denys@...p.net.lb>
CC:	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
Subject: Re: iproute2-2.6.20-070313 bug ?

Please don't remove CCs.

Denys wrote:
> 1024kb (if i am not wrong 1Mbyte) is huge?
> 
> For me it is ok, as soon as i have RAM.

Its not about the memory, its about the resulting queueing delay.
If you buffer packets for 64 seconds the sender will retransmit
them and you end up wasting bandwidth.

> Another thing, it is working well 
> with old tc. Just really if i have plenty of RAM's and i want 32second 
> buffer, why i cannot have that, and if i see it is really possible before?

I know it worked before. But I can't think of a reason why anyone
would want a buffer that large. Why do you want to queue packets
for up to 64 seconds?
-
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