|Subject:||Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?|
|From:||Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:58:47 -0800|
|References:||<41F1516D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <41F163AD.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <41F17B7E.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <41F186A8.firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041206|
Rick Jones wrote:
That's not to say that we still won't have incentive to set tcp_tso_win_divisor (shouldn't that really be tcp_tso_cwnd_divisor?) to 1 :)
Speaking of divisor values... is zero (0) supposed to be a legal value? The sysctl seems to allow it but it does seem to behave a triffle strangely. The initial TSO size appeared to be 2MSS.
It might be rather interesting if a value of zero were to have the effect of ignoring initial cwnd entirely :) It wouldn't be "legal" in the RFC sense, but I suspect it would make for some interesting experimental opportunities. Rather far down on the list though.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [RFC 2.6.10 4/22] xfrm: Try to offload inbound xfrm_states, David S. Miller|
|Next by Date:||[RFT] skge: new syskonnect gigabit ethernet driver (0.4), Stephen Hemminger|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?, Rick Jones|
|Next by Thread:||Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?, David S. Miller|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|