[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100221221829.GX2659@nuttenaction>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:18:29 +0100
From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Andreas Petlund <apetlund@...ula.no>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ilpo J?rvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Arnd Hannemann <hannemann@...s.rwth-aachen.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, shemminger@...tta.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
william.allen.simpson@...il.com, damian@....rwth-aachen.de,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 1/3] net: TCP thin-stream detection
* Pavel Machek | 2010-02-21 11:21:03 [+0100]:
>> +1) If the stream is thin, fast retransmit on the first dupACK.
>> +2) If the stream is thin, do not apply exponential backoff.
>
>2) seems very dangerous/unfair. If network congestion is caused just
>by thin streams, will the network just fall apart?
I question the fairness of this modification! The modification sounds _really_
far-reaching. Did you analyse the behaviour of this modification? What about
fairness analysis? Great work is available in the network simulator sector for
this kind of analysis (e.g. jain's fairness index).
HGN
--
Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net> || http://jauu.net/
Telephone: +49 174 5455209 || Key Id: 0x98350C22
Key Fingerprint: 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22
--
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