| To: | "'Hubert Tonneau'" <hubert.tonneau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Stephen Hemminger'" <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>, "'cliff white'" <cliffw@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: [RFT] BIC TCP delayed ack compensation |
| From: | "Injong Rhee" <rhee@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:37:35 -0500 |
| Cc: | "'Alexey Kuznetsov'" <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'David S. Miller'" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <052Q0TU11@server5.heliogroup.fr> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcUZMgHZZJ600QnDQLu2Rlc7tK+91QApGn8w |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hubert Tonneau [mailto:hubert.tonneau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:23 PM > 2.6.9 to 100 Mbps connected MacOSX: 15 seconds (for roughly 100 MB > or data) > 2.6.9 to gigabit connected MacOSX: 5 seconds > 2.6.10-ac11 to 100 Mbps connected MacOSX: 325 seconds > 2.6.10-ac11 to gigabit connected MacOSX: 5 seconds > 2.6.10-ac11+BIC to 100 Mbps connected MacOSX: 620 seconds > 2.6.10-ac11+BIC to gigabit connected MacOSX: 5 seconds Another way to test whether this is related to the os or bic implementation is to test it with our bic patch 1.1. + Linux 2.4. It will tell whether the original implementation of BIC has something to do with the performance with respect to MacOS. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: [RFT] BIC TCP delayed ack compensation, Injong Rhee |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFT] BIC TCP delayed ack compensation, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFT] BIC TCP delayed ack compensation, Stephen Hemminger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFT] BIC TCP delayed ack compensation, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |