[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4828981E.1000104@damtek.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 15:18:54 -0400
From: "Damon L. Chesser" <damon@...tek.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fix FRTO+NewReno problem (Was: Re: This has a work around)
Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
>
>> Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>> > On Mon, 12 May 2008, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
>> >
>> > > I applied the patches in order, no errors on that. I compiled a
>> stock
>> > > 2.4.24-1 kernel with the patches, I saw no errors there.
>> > >
>> > > booted into new kernel, printed with tcp_frto=0. set tcp_frto =2,
>> > > restarted
>> > > the network (is this required, or is this a dynamic setting?),
>> printed
>> > > from OO
>> > > document. No joy. tcpdump log attached (almost 15 min. worth of
>> data)
>> > >
>> > > If you want, I can re-compile and double check for any
>> compilation errors,
>> > > however, if there were any, it was not sever enough to stop the
>> > > compilation.
>> >
>> > On the bright side, the FRTO problem that was occuring previously
>> is now
>> > fixed but there seems to be very few ways to communicate with that
>> device
>> > sanely because it assumes in-order arrival and keeps discarding, as it
>> > seems, _all_ other segments... If you could try with this additional
>> > work-around attached (keep the fixes there as well). Turn
>> > tcp_frto_inorder_workaround sysctl to 1 before testing with FRTO.
>> >
>> > ...Can you please send a dump about working case too, this seems
>> rather
>> > nasty device to work with (tcp_frto = 0 is enough to attain it, no
>> need to
>> > have another kernel booted for that) and I'm interested to see what
>> are the
>> > loss rates without FRTO...
>> >
>> >
>> New patch added in with the first two, tcp_frto_inorder_workaround =1
>> test
>> printed 5 pages: This worked. Attached is the output of tcpdump. Need
>> anything else?
>
> Thanks a lot for the testing & all. The picture is clear enough
> already, so no additional help needed (I haven't yet looked the
> non-frto dump but
> I doubt anything earth-shattering turns out, it's mostly interesting
> for finding out how efficiently such network printer TCP can consume
> segments it's receiving once FRTO related "fuzzy" ordering effects are
> removed, for comparison purposes, mostly interesting and that's for hc
> tcp guy like me :-)).
>
>
> Then one question for DaveM:
>
> What I'm not fully sure of, is do we want this workaround to be a
> sysctl or unconditionally enabled which causes potentially up to two
> unnecessary retransmissions? With SACK one or both of them will get
> SACKed before they get retransmitted (both cases have common
> scenarios). (I made that workaround patch for 2.6.24.1, so YMMV if you
> just plainly try to apply it to net-2.6).
>
One more question from me, what release will we see these updates in,
2.6.26?
--
Damon L. Chesser
damon@...tek.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dchesser
--
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