| 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: <2994.152.14.88.74.1178822365.squirrel@webmail.ncsu.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:39:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: rhee@...u.edu
To: "Bill Fink" <billfink@...dspring.com>
Cc: "Bill Fink" <billfink@...dspring.com>,
"SANGTAE HA" <sangtae.ha@...il.com>,
"Linux Network Developers" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.20.7 TCP cubic (and bic) initial slow start way too slow?
Bill,
Could you test with the lastest version of CUBIC? this is not the latest
version of it you tested.
Injong
> As a followup, I ran a somewhat interesting test. I increased the
> requested socket buffer size to 100 MB, which is sufficient to
> overstress the capabilities of the netem delay emulator (which can
> handle up to about 8.5 Gbps). This causes some packet loss when
> using the standard Reno agressive "slow start".
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
> 0 segments retransmited
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
> cubic
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# echo 0 > /sys/module/tcp_cubic/parameters/initial_ssthresh
> [root@...g2 ~]# cat /sys/module/tcp_cubic/parameters/initial_ssthresh
> 0
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -T10 -i1 -w100m 192.168.89.15
> 69.9829 MB / 1.00 sec = 585.1895 Mbps
> 311.9521 MB / 1.00 sec = 2616.9019 Mbps
> 0.2332 MB / 1.00 sec = 1.9559 Mbps
> 37.9907 MB / 1.00 sec = 318.6912 Mbps
> 702.7856 MB / 1.00 sec = 5895.4640 Mbps
> 817.0142 MB / 1.00 sec = 6853.7006 Mbps
> 820.3125 MB / 1.00 sec = 6881.3626 Mbps
> 820.5625 MB / 1.00 sec = 6883.2601 Mbps
> 813.0125 MB / 1.00 sec = 6820.2678 Mbps
> 815.7756 MB / 1.00 sec = 6842.8867 Mbps
>
> 5253.2500 MB / 10.07 sec = 4378.0109 Mbps 72 %TX 35 %RX
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
> 464 segments retransmited
> 464 fast retransmits
>
> Contrast that with the default behavior.
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# echo 100 >
> /sys/module/tcp_cubic/parameters/initial_ssthresh
> [root@...g2 ~]# cat /sys/module/tcp_cubic/parameters/initial_ssthresh
> 100
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -T10 -i1 -w100m 192.168.89.15
> 6.8188 MB / 1.00 sec = 57.1670 Mbps
> 16.2097 MB / 1.00 sec = 135.9795 Mbps
> 25.4810 MB / 1.00 sec = 213.7525 Mbps
> 38.7256 MB / 1.00 sec = 324.8580 Mbps
> 49.7998 MB / 1.00 sec = 417.7565 Mbps
> 62.5745 MB / 1.00 sec = 524.9189 Mbps
> 78.6646 MB / 1.00 sec = 659.8947 Mbps
> 98.9673 MB / 1.00 sec = 830.2086 Mbps
> 124.3201 MB / 1.00 sec = 1038.7288 Mbps
> 156.1584 MB / 1.00 sec = 1309.9730 Mbps
>
> 775.2500 MB / 10.64 sec = 611.0181 Mbps 7 %TX 7 %RX
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
> 464 segments retransmited
> 464 fast retransmits
>
> The standard Reno aggressive "slow start" gets much better overall
> performance even in this case, because even though the default cubic
> behavior manages to avoid the "congestion" event, its lack of
> aggressiveness during the initial slow start period puts it at a
> major disadvantage. It would take a long time for the tortoise
> in this race to catch up with the hare.
>
> It seems best to ramp up as quickly as possible to any congestion,
> using the standard Reno aggressive "slow start" behavior, and then
> let the power of cubic take over from there, getting the best of
> both worlds.
>
> For completeness here's the same test with bic.
>
> First with the standard Reno aggessive "slow start" behavior:
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
> 464 segments retransmited
> 464 fast retransmits
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# echo bic > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
> [root@...g2 ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
> bic
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# echo 0 > /sys/module/tcp_bic/parameters/initial_ssthresh
> [root@...g2 ~]# cat /sys/module/tcp_bic/parameters/initial_ssthresh
> 0
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -T10 -i1 -w100m 192.168.89.15
> 69.9829 MB / 1.00 sec = 585.2770 Mbps
> 302.3921 MB / 1.00 sec = 2536.7045 Mbps
> 0.0000 MB / 1.00 sec = 0.0000 Mbps
> 0.7520 MB / 1.00 sec = 6.3079 Mbps
> 114.1570 MB / 1.00 sec = 957.5914 Mbps
> 792.9634 MB / 1.00 sec = 6651.5131 Mbps
> 845.9099 MB / 1.00 sec = 7096.4182 Mbps
> 865.0825 MB / 1.00 sec = 7257.1575 Mbps
> 890.4663 MB / 1.00 sec = 7470.0567 Mbps
> 911.5039 MB / 1.00 sec = 7646.3560 Mbps
>
> 4829.9375 MB / 10.05 sec = 4033.0191 Mbps 76 %TX 32 %RX
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
> 1093 segments retransmited
> 1093 fast retransmits
>
> And then with the default bic behavior:
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# echo 100 > /sys/module/tcp_bic/parameters/initial_ssthresh
> [root@...g2 ~]# cat /sys/module/tcp_bic/parameters/initial_ssthresh
> 100
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -T10 -i1 -w100m 192.168.89.15
> 9.9548 MB / 1.00 sec = 83.1028 Mbps
> 47.5439 MB / 1.00 sec = 398.8351 Mbps
> 107.6147 MB / 1.00 sec = 902.7506 Mbps
> 183.9038 MB / 1.00 sec = 1542.7124 Mbps
> 313.4875 MB / 1.00 sec = 2629.7689 Mbps
> 531.0012 MB / 1.00 sec = 4454.3032 Mbps
> 841.7866 MB / 1.00 sec = 7061.5098 Mbps
> 837.5867 MB / 1.00 sec = 7026.4041 Mbps
> 834.8889 MB / 1.00 sec = 7003.3667 Mbps
>
> 4539.6250 MB / 10.00 sec = 3806.5410 Mbps 50 %TX 34 %RX
>
> [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
> 1093 segments retransmited
> 1093 fast retransmits
>
> bic actually does much better than cubic for this scenario, and only
> loses out to the standard Reno aggressive "slow start" behavior by a
> small amount. Of course in the case of no congestion, it loses out
> by a much more significant margin.
>
> This reinforces my belief that it's best to marry the standard Reno
> aggressive initial "slow start" behavior with the better performance
> of bic or cubic during the subsequent steady state portion of the
> TCP session.
>
> I can of course achieve that objective by setting initial_ssthresh
> to 0, but perhaps that should be made the default behavior.
>
> -Bill
>
>
>
> On Wed, 9 May 2007, I wrote:
>
>> Hi Sangtae,
>>
>> On Tue, 8 May 2007, SANGTAE HA wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Bill,
>> >
>> > At this time, BIC and CUBIC use a less aggressive slow start than
>> > other protocols. Because we observed "slow start" is somewhat
>> > aggressive and introduced a lot of packet losses. This may be changed
>> > to standard "slow start" in later version of BIC and CUBIC, but, at
>> > this time, we still using a modified slow start.
>>
>> "slow start" is somewhat of a misnomer. However, I'd argue in favor
>> of using the standard "slow start" for BIC and CUBIC as the default.
>> Is the rationale for using a less agressive "slow start" to be gentler
>> to certain receivers, which possibly can't handle a rapidly increasing
>> initial burst of packets (and the resultant necessary allocation of
>> system resources)? Or is it related to encountering actual network
>> congestion during the initial "slow start" period, and how well that
>> is responded to?
>>
>> > So, as you observed, this modified slow start behavior may slow for
>> > 10G testing. You can alleviate this for your 10G testing by changing
>> > BIC and CUBIC to use a standard "slow start" by loading these modules
>> > with "initial_ssthresh=0".
>>
>> I saw the initial_ssthresh parameter, but didn't know what it did or
>> even what its units were. I saw the default value was 100 and tried
>> increasing it, but I didn't think to try setting it to 0.
>>
>> [root@...g2 ~]# grep -r initial_ssthresh
>> /usr/src/kernels/linux-2.6.20.7/Documentation/
>> [root@...g2 ~]#
>>
>> It would be good to have some documentation for these bic and cubic
>> parameters similar to the documentation in ip-sysctl.txt for the
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv[46]/* variables (I know, I know, I should just
>> "use the source").
>>
>> Is it expected that the cubic "slow start" is that much less agressive
>> than the bic "slow start" (from 10 secs to max rate for bic in my test
>> to 25 secs to max rate for cubic). This could be considered a
>> performance
>> regression since the default TCP was changed from bic to cubic.
>>
>> In any event, I'm now happy as setting initial_ssthresh to 0 works
>> well for me.
>>
>> [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
>> 0 segments retransmited
>>
>> [root@...g2 ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
>> cubic
>>
>> [root@...g2 ~]# cat /sys/module/tcp_cubic/parameters/initial_ssthresh
>> 0
>>
>> [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -T10 -i1 -w60m 192.168.89.15
>> 69.9829 MB / 1.00 sec = 584.2065 Mbps
>> 843.1467 MB / 1.00 sec = 7072.9052 Mbps
>> 844.3655 MB / 1.00 sec = 7082.6544 Mbps
>> 842.2671 MB / 1.00 sec = 7065.7169 Mbps
>> 839.9204 MB / 1.00 sec = 7045.8335 Mbps
>> 840.1780 MB / 1.00 sec = 7048.3114 Mbps
>> 834.1475 MB / 1.00 sec = 6997.4270 Mbps
>> 835.5972 MB / 1.00 sec = 7009.3148 Mbps
>> 835.8152 MB / 1.00 sec = 7011.7537 Mbps
>> 830.9333 MB / 1.00 sec = 6969.9281 Mbps
>>
>> 7617.1875 MB / 10.01 sec = 6386.2622 Mbps 90 %TX 46 %RX
>>
>> [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
>> 0 segments retransmited
>>
>> -Thanks a lot!
>>
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> > Regards,
>> > Sangtae
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/6/07, Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com> wrote:
>> > > The initial TCP slow start on 2.6.20.7 cubic (and to a lesser
>> > > extent bic) seems to be way too slow. With an ~80 ms RTT, this
>> > > is what cubic delivers (thirty second test with one second interval
>> > > reporting and specifying a socket buffer size of 60 MB):
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
>> > > 0 segments retransmited
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
>> > > cubic
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -T30 -i1 -w60m 192.168.89.15
>> > > 6.8188 MB / 1.00 sec = 57.0365 Mbps
>> > > 16.2097 MB / 1.00 sec = 135.9824 Mbps
>> > > 25.4553 MB / 1.00 sec = 213.5420 Mbps
>> > > 35.5127 MB / 1.00 sec = 297.9119 Mbps
>> > > 43.0066 MB / 1.00 sec = 360.7770 Mbps
>> > > 50.3210 MB / 1.00 sec = 422.1370 Mbps
>> > > 59.0796 MB / 1.00 sec = 495.6124 Mbps
>> > > 69.1284 MB / 1.00 sec = 579.9098 Mbps
>> > > 76.6479 MB / 1.00 sec = 642.9130 Mbps
>> > > 90.6189 MB / 1.00 sec = 760.2835 Mbps
>> > > 109.4348 MB / 1.00 sec = 918.0361 Mbps
>> > > 128.3105 MB / 1.00 sec = 1076.3813 Mbps
>> > > 150.4932 MB / 1.00 sec = 1262.4686 Mbps
>> > > 175.9229 MB / 1.00 sec = 1475.7965 Mbps
>> > > 205.9412 MB / 1.00 sec = 1727.6150 Mbps
>> > > 240.8130 MB / 1.00 sec = 2020.1504 Mbps
>> > > 282.1790 MB / 1.00 sec = 2367.1644 Mbps
>> > > 318.1841 MB / 1.00 sec = 2669.1349 Mbps
>> > > 372.6814 MB / 1.00 sec = 3126.1687 Mbps
>> > > 440.8411 MB / 1.00 sec = 3698.5200 Mbps
>> > > 524.8633 MB / 1.00 sec = 4403.0220 Mbps
>> > > 614.3542 MB / 1.00 sec = 5153.7367 Mbps
>> > > 718.9917 MB / 1.00 sec = 6031.5386 Mbps
>> > > 829.0474 MB / 1.00 sec = 6954.6438 Mbps
>> > > 867.3289 MB / 1.00 sec = 7275.9510 Mbps
>> > > 865.7759 MB / 1.00 sec = 7262.9813 Mbps
>> > > 864.4795 MB / 1.00 sec = 7251.7071 Mbps
>> > > 864.5425 MB / 1.00 sec = 7252.8519 Mbps
>> > > 867.3372 MB / 1.00 sec = 7246.9232 Mbps
>> > >
>> > > 10773.6875 MB / 30.00 sec = 3012.3936 Mbps 38 %TX 25 %RX
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
>> > > 0 segments retransmited
>> > >
>> > > It takes 25 seconds for cubic TCP to reach its maximal rate.
>> > > Note that there were no TCP retransmissions (no congestion
>> > > experienced).
>> > >
>> > > Now with bic (only 20 second test this time):
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# echo bic > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
>> > > bic
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -T20 -i1 -w60m 192.168.89.15
>> > > 9.9548 MB / 1.00 sec = 83.1497 Mbps
>> > > 47.2021 MB / 1.00 sec = 395.9762 Mbps
>> > > 92.4304 MB / 1.00 sec = 775.3889 Mbps
>> > > 134.3774 MB / 1.00 sec = 1127.2758 Mbps
>> > > 194.3286 MB / 1.00 sec = 1630.1987 Mbps
>> > > 280.0598 MB / 1.00 sec = 2349.3613 Mbps
>> > > 404.3201 MB / 1.00 sec = 3391.8250 Mbps
>> > > 559.1594 MB / 1.00 sec = 4690.6677 Mbps
>> > > 792.7100 MB / 1.00 sec = 6650.0257 Mbps
>> > > 857.2241 MB / 1.00 sec = 7190.6942 Mbps
>> > > 852.6912 MB / 1.00 sec = 7153.3283 Mbps
>> > > 852.6968 MB / 1.00 sec = 7153.2538 Mbps
>> > > 851.3162 MB / 1.00 sec = 7141.7575 Mbps
>> > > 851.4927 MB / 1.00 sec = 7143.0240 Mbps
>> > > 850.8782 MB / 1.00 sec = 7137.8762 Mbps
>> > > 852.7119 MB / 1.00 sec = 7153.2949 Mbps
>> > > 852.3879 MB / 1.00 sec = 7150.2982 Mbps
>> > > 850.2163 MB / 1.00 sec = 7132.5165 Mbps
>> > > 849.8340 MB / 1.00 sec = 7129.0026 Mbps
>> > >
>> > > 11882.7500 MB / 20.00 sec = 4984.0068 Mbps 67 %TX 41 %RX
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
>> > > 0 segments retransmited
>> > >
>> > > bic does better but still takes 10 seconds to achieve its maximal
>> > > rate.
>> > >
>> > > Surprisingly venerable reno does the best (only a 10 second test):
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# echo reno >
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control
>> > > reno
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -T10 -i1 -w60m 192.168.89.15
>> > > 69.9829 MB / 1.01 sec = 583.5822 Mbps
>> > > 844.3870 MB / 1.00 sec = 7083.2808 Mbps
>> > > 862.7568 MB / 1.00 sec = 7237.7342 Mbps
>> > > 859.5725 MB / 1.00 sec = 7210.8981 Mbps
>> > > 860.1365 MB / 1.00 sec = 7215.4487 Mbps
>> > > 865.3940 MB / 1.00 sec = 7259.8434 Mbps
>> > > 863.9678 MB / 1.00 sec = 7247.4942 Mbps
>> > > 864.7493 MB / 1.00 sec = 7254.4634 Mbps
>> > > 864.6660 MB / 1.00 sec = 7253.5183 Mbps
>> > >
>> > > 7816.9375 MB / 10.00 sec = 6554.4883 Mbps 90 %TX 53 %RX
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# netstat -s | grep -i retrans
>> > > 0 segments retransmited
>> > >
>> > > reno achieves its maximal rate in about 2 seconds. This is what I
>> > > would expect from the exponential increase during TCP's initial
>> > > slow start. To achieve 10 Gbps on an 80 ms RTT with 9000 byte
>> > > jumbo frame packets would require:
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# bc -l
>> > > scale=10
>> > > 10^10*0.080/9000/8
>> > > 11111.1111111111
>> > >
>> > > So 11111 packets would have to be in flight during one RTT.
>> > > It should take log2(11111)+1 round trips to achieve 10 Gbps
>> > > (note bc's l() function is logE);
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# bc -l
>> > > scale=10
>> > > l(11111)/l(2)+1
>> > > 14.4397010470
>> > >
>> > > And 15 round trips at 80 ms each gives a total time of:
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# bc -l
>> > > scale=10
>> > > 15*0.080
>> > > 1.200
>> > >
>> > > So if there is no packet loss (which there wasn't), it should only
>> > > take about 1.2 seconds to achieve 10 Gbps. Only TCP reno is in
>> > > this ballpark range.
>> > >
>> > > Now it's quite possible there's something basic I don't understand,
>> > > such as some /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_* or
>> /sys/module/tcp_*/parameters/*
>> > > parameter I've overlooked, in which case feel free to just refer me
>> > > to any suitable documentation.
>> > >
>> > > I also checked the Changelog for 2.6.20.{8,9,10,11} to see if there
>> > > might be any relevant recent bug fixes, but the only thing that
>> seemed
>> > > even remotely related was the 2.6.20.11 bug fix for the tcp_mem
>> setting.
>> > > Although this did affect me, I manually adjusted the tcp_mem
>> settings
>> > > before running these tests.
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mem
>> 393216 524288 786432
>> > >
>> > > The test setup was:
>> > >
>> > > +-------+ +-------+
>> +-------+
>> > > | |eth2 eth2| |eth3 eth2|
>> |
>> > > | lang2 |-----10-GigE-----| lang1 |-----10-GigE-----| lang3
>> |
>> > > | | | | |
>> |
>> > > +-------+ +-------+
>> +-------+
>> > > 192.168.88.14 192.168.88.13/192.168.89.13
>> 192.168.89.15
>> > >
>> > > All three systems are dual 2.8 GHz AMD Opteron Processor 254 systems
>> > > with 4 GB memory and all running the 2.6.20.7 kernel. All the NICs
>> > > are Myricom PCI-E 10-GigE NICs.
>> > >
>> > > The 80 ms delay was introduced by applying netem to lang1's eth3
>> > > interface:
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g1 ~]# tc qdisc add dev eth3 root netem delay 80ms limit
>> 20000
>> > > [root@...g1 ~]# tc qdisc show
>> > > qdisc pfifo_fast 0: dev eth2 root bands 3 priomap 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 1
>> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
>> > > qdisc netem 8022: dev eth3 limit 20000 delay 80.0ms reorder 100%
>> > >
>> > > Experimentation determined that netem running on lang1 could handle
>> > > about 8-8.5 Gbps without dropping packets.
>> > >
>> > > 8.5 Gbps UDP test:
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -u -Ri8.5g -w20m 192.168.89.15
>> > > 10136.4844 MB / 10.01 sec = 8497.8205 Mbps 100 %TX 56 %RX 0 /
>> 1297470 drop/pkt 0.00 %loss
>> > >
>> > > Increasing the rate to 9 Gbps would give some loss:
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -u -Ri9g -w20m 192.168.89.15
>> > > 10219.1719 MB / 10.01 sec = 8560.2455 Mbps 100 %TX 58 %RX 65500 /
>> 1373554 drop/pkt 4.77 %loss
>> > >
>> > > Based on this, the specification of a 60 MB TCP socket buffer size
>> was
>> > > used during the TCP tests to avoid overstressing the lang1 netem
>> delay
>> > > emulator (to avoid dropping any packets).
>> > >
>> > > Simple ping through the lang1 netem delay emulator:
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# ping -c 5 192.168.89.15
>> > > PING 192.168.89.15 (192.168.89.15) 56(84) bytes of data.
>> > > 64 bytes from 192.168.89.15: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=80.4 ms
>> > > 64 bytes from 192.168.89.15: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=82.1 ms
>> > > 64 bytes from 192.168.89.15: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=82.1 ms
>> > > 64 bytes from 192.168.89.15: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=82.1 ms
>> > > 64 bytes from 192.168.89.15: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=82.1 ms
>> > >
>> > > --- 192.168.89.15 ping statistics ---
>> > > 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4014ms
>> > > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 80.453/81.804/82.173/0.722 ms
>> > >
>> > > And a bidirectional traceroute (using the "nuttcp -xt" option):
>> > >
>> > > [root@...g2 ~]# nuttcp -xt 192.168.89.15
>> > > traceroute to 192.168.89.15 (192.168.89.15), 30 hops max, 40 byte
>> packets
>> > > 1 192.168.88.13 (192.168.88.13) 0.141 ms 0.125 ms 0.125 ms
>> > > 2 192.168.89.15 (192.168.89.15) 82.112 ms 82.039 ms 82.541 ms
>> > >
>> > > traceroute to 192.168.88.14 (192.168.88.14), 30 hops max, 40 byte
>> packets
>> > > 1 192.168.89.13 (192.168.89.13) 81.101 ms 83.001 ms 82.999 ms
>> > > 2 192.168.88.14 (192.168.88.14) 83.005 ms 82.985 ms 82.978 ms
>> > >
>> > > So is this a real bug in cubic (and bic), or do I just not
>> understand
>> > > something basic.
>> > >
>> > > -Bill
> -
> 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
>
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists