| To: | rminnich@xxxxxxxx (Ronald G Minnich) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: your mail |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:21:23 +0300 (MSK) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxx, hendriks@xxxxxxxx, matt@xxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.33.0202041347270.4327-100000@snaresland.acl.lanl.gov> from "Ronald G Minnich" at Feb 4, 2 02:05:04 pm |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > To recap, nivedita proposed a TCP_DELACK sockopt to allow users to > completely disabled delayed acks. Alexey thought this a bad idea. We're > not convinced it is a bad idea, and it has a lot of attraction for us. ... > Alexey's comments are plain, and my comments in <<<>>> I did not write the phrases in <<<>>>. :-) Yes, I really insist: disabling delayed ACKs is _never_ good. Such curcumstances just do not exist in the nature. I do not understand what happens in your case, you did not provide tcpdumps. Though I even can suspect that your problem is due to too frequent acking. :-) Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Problems by forwarding packets in kernel!, Atif Syed |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: your mail, Ronald G Minnich |
| Previous by Thread: | [no subject], Ronald G Minnich |
| Next by Thread: | Re: your mail, Ronald G Minnich |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |