| To: | ak@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Karn's rule in Linux TCP |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:12:44 -0800 |
| Cc: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20001106220115.A26879@gruyere.muc.suse.de> (message from Andi Kleen on Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:01:15 +0100) |
| References: | <20001106220115.A26879@gruyere.muc.suse.de> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:01:15 +0100 From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> So one way to solve it would be to turn off the Karn filter after a few retransmits in tcp_ack_no_tstamp(). The hard to tune thing is how many retransmits it should wait. It depends what are good practical upper boundaries for packet live times in the real internet. If you spent some time implementing this and trying to tune it, I would accept such a patch. Any suggestions on that? Any other ideas? This is certainly tcp-impl (or end2end, but not both) material, please Andi discuss your findings on one of those two lists, I bet you will get a precise response from those in the know :-) Later, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Poor TCP Performance 2.4.0-10 <-> Win98 SE PPP, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Strange accept() behaviour in 2.2, Andrew Morton |
| Previous by Thread: | Karn's rule in Linux TCP, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Karn's rule in Linux TCP, kuznet |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |