| 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <0525M9211@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <420D37A3.6020209@xxxxxx> <20050211170958.17fcde21.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050212143105.GB27456@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <86de38db09518ced8865af09cd79c064@xxxxxx> <20050212205617.GA29146@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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 |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/4] [NETLINK] introduce netlink_check_skb function, Pablo Neira |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, rick jones |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |