Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailer2.psc.edu (mailer2.psc.edu [128.182.66.106]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with SMTP id i67KHdgi006486 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:18:00 -0700 Received: from dexter.psc.edu (dexter.psc.edu [128.182.61.232]) by mailer2.psc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i67JfD77009086 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dexter.psc.edu (dexter.psc.edu [128.182.61.232]) by dexter.psc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i67JfD2Q021935; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:41:13 -0400 (EDT) From: John Heffner To: Stephen Hemminger cc: "David S. Miller" , bert hubert , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. In-Reply-To: <20040707110653.7c49bef1@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.70, clamav-milter version 0.70j X-archive-position: 6764 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: jheffner@psc.edu Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev Content-Length: 695 Lines: 21 On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > I do not argue with that the correct thing to do is to use window scaling > and find/fix the poor sop's stuck behind busted networks. > > But: isn't it better to have just one sysctl parameter set (tcp_rmem) > and set the window scale as needed rather than increasing the already > bewildering array of dials and knobs? I can't see why it would be advantageous > to set a window scale of 7 if the largest possible window ever offered > is limited to a smaller value? I personally agree with this. One can imagine cases where it would be useful to have a control on window scale, but the added complexity is probably not worth it. -John