Re: [PATCH] tcp: Implement a two-level initial RTO as per draft RFC 2988bis-02.

[tsuna]

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So yes, it CAN be wise to choose other lower/upper bounds. But keep in
> mind that we should NOT artificial limit ourself. I can image data center
> scenarios where a initial RTO of <1 match perfectly.

Yes that's exactly the point I was trying to make when talking to
Alexander offline.  On today's Internet, RTTs are easily in the
hundreds of ms, and initRTO is 3s, so there's 2 orders of magnitude of
difference.  In my environment, if my RTT is ~2µs, an initRTO of 200ms
means that there's a gap of 6 orders of magnitude (!).  And yes,
although I don't work for High Frequency Trading companies in Wall
Street, I'm already buying switches full of line-rate 10Gb ports with
a port-to-port latency of 500ns for L2/L3 forwarding/switching.  I
expect this kind of network gear will quickly become prevalent in
datacenter/backend environments.

-- 
Benoit "tsuna" Sigoure
Software Engineer @ www.StumbleUpon.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/