netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?

To: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:58:47 -0800
In-reply-to: <41F186A8.9030805@xxxxxx>
References: <41F1516D.5010101@xxxxxx> <200501211358.53783.jdmason@xxxxxxxxxx> <41F163AD.5070400@xxxxxx> <20050121124441.76cbbfb9.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F17B7E.2020002@xxxxxx> <20050121141820.7d59a2d1.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F186A8.9030805@xxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041206
Rick Jones wrote:
That's not to say that we still won't have incentive to set
tcp_tso_win_divisor (shouldn't that really be tcp_tso_cwnd_divisor?) to 1 :)

Speaking of divisor values... is zero (0) supposed to be a legal value? The sysctl seems to allow it but it does seem to behave a triffle strangely. The initial TSO size appeared to be 2MSS.

It might be rather interesting if a value of zero were to have the effect of ignoring initial cwnd entirely :) It wouldn't be "legal" in the RFC sense, but I suspect it would make for some interesting experimental opportunities. Rather far down on the list though.

rick jones

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>