netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch

To: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch
From: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:27:50 -0800
Cc: rick jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, hubert.tonneau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050212205617.GA29146@yakov.inr.ac.ru>
References: <0525M9211@server5.heliogroup.fr> <420D37A3.6020209@hp.com> <20050211170958.17fcde21.davem@davemloft.net> <20050212143105.GB27456@yakov.inr.ac.ru> <86de38db09518ced8865af09cd79c064@hp.com> <20050212205617.GA29146@yakov.inr.ac.ru>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707
Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:

If receiver sent an ACK it still does not mean that sender used it
to increase its cwnd. Particularly, small packet exchange definitely
does not inflate cwnd.

Simplest way to go about this is simply compare it to the trace of the "good/fast" connection - Hubert, could you provide the "good" trace as well? That would show where the differences in time are taken up..

thanks,
Nivedita

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