[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080923021237.GC25711@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:12:37 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, csnook@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: Nagle latency tuning
> That seems as much of a case against NAT as per-destintation attribute
> caching.
Sure in a ideal world NAT wouldn't exist. Unfortunately we're
not in a ideal world.
Also in general my impression is that NAT is becoming more common.
e.g. a lot of the mobile networks seem to be NATed.
>
> If my experience at "a large company" is any indication, for 99
My experience at a large company was different. Also see my
second example.
>
> And even if I were not, how is per-destination caching the possibly
> non-optimal characteristics based on one user behind a NAT really
> functionally different than having to tune the system-wide defaults to
> cover that corner-case user?
It's just wasteful on network resouces. e.g. if you start
talking to the slow link with a too large congestion window
a lot of packets are going to be dropped. Yes TCP will
eventually adapt, but the network and the user performance
suffers and the network is ineffectively used.
> Seems that caching per-destination
> characteristics is actually limiting the alleged brokenness to that
> destination rather than all destinations?
Not sure what you're talking about. There's no real brokenness
in having a slow link. And with default startup metrics
Linux TCP has no trouble talking to a slow link.
The brokenness is using the dst_entry TCP metrics of a fast link
to talk to a slow link and that happens with NAT.
-Andi
--
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