[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1356007270.25310.20.camel@cr0>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:41:10 +0800
From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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
On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 09:57 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > 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.
>
A customer prefers faster response in their low-loss environment, 40ms
is not good. Of course, they are supposed to know their environment when
they tune this.
Or maybe a sysctl equals to TCP_QUICKACK?
--
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