[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B70FC@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:57:27 -0000
From: "David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: "Cong Wang" <amwang@...hat.com>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: <rick.jones2@...com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<greearb@...delatech.com>, <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
<shemminger@...tta.com>, <tgraf@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: TCP delayed ACK heuristic
> So, can we at least have a sysctl to control the timeout of the delayed
> ACK? I mean the minimum 40ms. TCP_QUICKACK can help too, but it requires
> the receiver to modify the application and has to be set every time when
> calling recv().
A sysctl in inappropriate - it affects the entire TCP protocol stack.
You want different behaviour for different remote hosts (probably
different subnets).
In particular your local subnet is unlikely to have packet loss
and very likely to have a very low RTT.
AFAICT a lot of the recent 'tuning' has been done for web/ftp
servers that are very remote from the client. These connections
are also request-response ones - quite often with large responses.
IMHO This has been to the detriment of local connections.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists