[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:39:04 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: hannes@...essinduktion.org, amwang@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, rick.jones2@...com,
shemminger@...tta.com, tgraf@...g.ch, David.Laight@...LAB.COM
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] tcp: add a global sysctl to control TCP delayed
ack
On 04/04/2013 04:25 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:48:10 +0200
>
>> I totally understand the objections that were given regarding this
>> patch. But for defense of this patch we also provide a knob to disable
>> slow start after idle, which from my point of view is as "evil" as
>> this change.
>
> I completely disagree, slow start after idle is way too aggressively
> throwing past history away, so turning that off is much safer.
I've been carrying a per-socket way to control delayed ack in my tree for a while,
and it is a big performance gain on wifi networks where the network is
basically half-duplex. If I recall correctly, it's worth 50+Mbps
throughput improvement in some cases. If it matters, I can post more
detailed numbers.
There are drawbacks when you set delayed ack too high: The ramp-up time
for TCP takes a good bit longer. But, some applications may want to trade
slower startup time for better bulk transport, and at moderate delayed-ack
values, the ramp up time is not noticeably impaired.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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