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
| ||
|
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