[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain...

To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain...
From: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:21:46 +0100
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050202205437.571a702b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4201A382.1020208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050202205437.571a702b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8a3) Gecko/20040817
Actually, thats my problem. Single streams are too slow! Before I had buffers up to 500 KB. This was very nice to CPU because I only needed to "push" more data once in 5 seconds. I am doing this every second now... *sigh* well maybe you might just want to add a /proc file in order to configure this behaviour.

btw: Another problem I am experiencing is that downloads suddenly break in speed from 360 kb/sec to 8-12 kb/sec. 5 seconds later they stall completely. But the interesting part is, that the send-queue is completely full (checked with a grep in netstat). This looks like as if the receiver is just too slow. But this is not the case. That makes it rather funny. The receiver is waiting with an empty pipe but linux doesn't send. What could this be?

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:07:30 +0100
Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Your new dynamically adjusted socket-buffer in 2.6.10 is really a pain for big servers. PLEASE tell me a way how to disable it.

sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_wmem="4096 8192 16384"

Your single stream will be slower, but the memory footprint will be smaller.

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