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, 4 Apr 2008 09:27:47 -0700
From:	"John Heffner" <johnwheffner@...il.com>
To:	"Wenji Wu" <wenji@...l.gov>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A Linux TCP SACK Question

Unless you're sending very fast, where the computational overhead of
processing SACK blocks is slowing you down, this is not expected
behavior.  Do you have more detail?  What is the window size, and how
much reordering?

Full binary tcpdumps are very useful in diagnosing this type of problem.

  -John


On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Wenji Wu <wenji@...l.gov> wrote:
> Hi, Could any body help me out with Linux TCP SACK? Thanks in advance.
>
>  I run iperf to send traffic from sender to receiver. and add packet reordering in both forward and reverse directions. I found when I turn off the SACK/DSACK option, the throughput is better than with the SACK/DSACK on? How could it happen in this way? did anybody encounter this phenomenon before?
>
>
>  thanks,
>
>  wenji
>  --
>  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