[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48D822E6.6070309@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:57:42 -0400
From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Nagle latency tuning
Rick Jones wrote:
>> Indeed. Setting tcp_delack_min to 0 completely eliminated the
>> undesired latencies, though of course that would be a bit dangerous
>> with naive apps talking across the network.
>
> What did it do to the packets per second or per unit of work? Depending
> on the nature of the race between the ACK returning from the remote and
> the application pushing more bytes into the socket, I'd think that
> setting the delayed ack timer to zero could result in more traffic on
> the network (those bare ACKs) than simply setting TCP_NODELAY at the
> source.
>
> And since with small packets and/or copy avoidance an ACK is
> (handwaving) just as many CPU cycles at either end as a data segment
> that also means a bump in CPU utilization.
>
> rick jones
I never saw performance go down, but I was always using low latency/high
bandwidth loopback or LAN connection, with only one socket per CPU.
I agree though, that turning this off is suboptimal. I'm going to pursue
David's idea of making delack_min and ato_min dynamically calculated by the kernel.
-- Chris
--
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