[Top] [All Lists]

Re: your mail

To: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: your mail
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:49:10 +0100
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxx, hendriks@xxxxxxxx, matt@xxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202051335000.8565-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20020205213328.A15478@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202051335000.8565-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 01:36:22PM -0700, Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I also have a hard time to see how delayed acks should introduce user
> > visible delays (assuming your send/receive buffers are big enough)
> I know. That's the whole problem. People have a hard time seeing
> something, so they deny its existence.

When you claim something that fails the sanity checks of several other
people and you blame Linux it is your duty to provide evidence for it. 
In TCP world the standard evidence is a tcpdump. tcpdumps don't lie. 
Without a tcpdump we can as well assume that the problem doesn't exist. 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>