[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:54:31 -0400
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Nagle latency tuning
On Sep 9, 2008, at Sep 9, 2008, 12:33 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
>> Most of the apps where people care about this enough to complain to
>> their vendor (the cases I hear about) are in messaging apps, where
>> they're relaying a stream of events that have little to do with
>> each other, and they want TCP to maintain the integrity of the
>> connection and do a modicum of bandwidth management, but 40 ms
>> stalls greatly exceed their latency tolerances.
>
> What _are_ their latency tolerances? How often are they willing to
> tolerate a modicum of TCP bandwidth management? Do they go ape when
> TCP sits waiting not just for 40ms, but for an entire RTO timer?
>
>> Using TCP_NODELAY is often the least bad option, but sometimes it's
>> infeasible because of its effect on the network, and it certainly
>> adds to the network stack overhead. A more tunable Nagle delay would
>> probably serve many of these apps much better.
>
> If the applications are sending streams of logically unrelated sends
> down the same socket, then setting TCP_NODELAY is IMO fine. Where
> it isn't fine is where these applications are generating their
> logically associated data in two or more small sends. One send per
> message good. Two sends per message bad.
Can the same be said of the Linux kernel's RPC client, which uses
MSG_MORE and multiple sends to construct a single RPC request on a TCP
socket?
See net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c:xs_send_pagedata() for details.
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
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