| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <49B6A14C.9070704@hp.com> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:20:12 -0700 From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> To: John Heffner <johnwheffner@...il.com> CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, md@....sk, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: TCP rx window autotuning harmful at LAN context > (Pretty sure we went over this already, but once more..) Sometimes I am but dense north by northwest, but I am also occasionally simply dense regardless of the direction :) > The receiver does not size to twice cwnd. It sizes to twice the amount of > data that the application read in one RTT. In the common case of a path > bottleneck and a receiving application that always keeps up, this equals > 2*cwnd, but the distinction is very important to understanding its behavior in > other cases. > > In your test where you limit sndbuf to 256k, you will find that you > did not fill up the bottleneck queues, and you did not get a > significantly increased RTT, which are the negative effects we want to > avoid. The large receive window caused no trouble at all. What is the definition of "significantly" here? With my 256K capped SO_SNDBUF ping seems to report like this: [root@...855 ~]# ping sut42 PING sut42.west (10.208.0.45) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.58 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.126 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.103 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.102 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.104 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.100 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.140 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.103 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=11.3 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=10.3 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=7.42 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=4.51 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=1.56 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=4.47 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=4.63 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=1.66 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=7.65 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=4.73 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.135 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.116 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=0.102 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=0.102 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=23 ttl=64 time=0.098 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=24 ttl=64 time=0.104 ms FWIW, when I uncap the SO_SNDBUF, the RTTs start to look like this instead: [root@...855 ~]# ping sut42 PING sut42.west (10.208.0.45) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.183 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.107 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.100 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.117 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.103 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.099 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.123 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=26.2 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=24.3 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=26.3 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=26.4 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=26.3 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=26.2 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=26.6 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=26.2 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=26.5 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=26.3 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.126 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.119 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.120 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=0.097 ms And then when I cap both sides to 64K requested/128K and still get link-rate the pings look like: [root@...855 ~]# ping sut42 PING sut42.west (10.208.0.45) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.161 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.104 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.103 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.101 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.106 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.102 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.753 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.594 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.789 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.566 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.587 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.635 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.729 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=0.613 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=0.609 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=0.655 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=0.152 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.106 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.100 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.106 ms 64 bytes from sut42.west (10.208.0.45): icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=0.122 ms None of the above "absolves" the sender of course, but I still get wrapped around the axle of handing so much rope to senders when we know 99 times out of ten they are going to hang themselves with it. rick jones Netperf cannot tell me bytes received per RTT, but it can tell me the average bytes per recv() call. I'm not sure if that is a sufficient approximation but here are those three netperf runs re-run with remote_bytes_per_recv added to the output: [root@...855 ~]# netperf -t omni -H sut42 -- -k foo -s 64K -S 64K OMNI TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to sut42.west (10.208.0.45) port 0 AF_INET THROUGHPUT=941.07 LSS_SIZE_REQ=65536 LSS_SIZE=131072 LSS_SIZE_END=131072 RSR_SIZE_REQ=65536 RSR_SIZE=131072 RSR_SIZE_END=131072 REMOTE_BYTES_PER_RECV=8178.43 [root@...855 ~]# netperf -t omni -H sut42 -- -k foo -s 128K OMNI TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to sut42.west (10.208.0.45) port 0 AF_INET THROUGHPUT=941.31 LSS_SIZE_REQ=131072 LSS_SIZE=262142 LSS_SIZE_END=262142 RSR_SIZE_REQ=-1 RSR_SIZE=87380 RSR_SIZE_END=4194304 REMOTE_BYTES_PER_RECV=8005.97 [root@...855 ~]# netperf -t omni -H sut42 -- -k foo OMNI TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to sut42.west (10.208.0.45) port 0 AF_INET THROUGHPUT=941.33 LSS_SIZE_REQ=-1 LSS_SIZE=16384 LSS_SIZE_END=4194304 RSR_SIZE_REQ=-1 RSR_SIZE=87380 RSR_SIZE_END=4194304 REMOTE_BYTES_PER_RECV=8055.89 -- 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