kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> > The assumption is that the peer is implemented the way you expect and
> > that the application doesn't toy with TCP_NODELAY.
>
> Sorry??
>
> It is the most important _exactly_ for TCP_NODELAY, which
> generates lots of remnants.
I simply meant that with the application in control of packet size, you
simply can't make a reliable estimate of maximum receive MSS unless our
assumption that only maximum sized segments don't have PSH.
> > Not really. You could do one of two things: either ack every second
> > segment
>
> I do not worry about this _at_ _all_. See?
> "each other", "each two mss" --- all this is red herring.
Whatever.
> I do understand your problem, which is not related to rcv_mss.
I know.
> When bandwidth in different directions differ more than 20 times,
> stretch ACKs are even preferred. Look into tcplw work, using stretch ACKs
> is even considered as something normal.
I know. It's a difficult tradeoff between saving bandwidth on the return
path, trying to maintain self clocking, and avoiding bursts caused by
ack compression.
> I really commiserate and think that removing "final cut" clause
> will help you.
Yes.
> But sending ACK on buffer drain at least for short
> packets is real demand, which cannot be relaxed.
Why? This one has me stumped.
> "final cut" is also better not to remove actually, but the case
> when it is required is probabilistically marginal.
>
> Alexey
Regards,
MikaL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:55 EST