| To: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:09:58 -0800 |
| Cc: | hubert.tonneau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <420D37A3.6020209@xxxxxx> |
| References: | <0525M9211@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <420D37A3.6020209@xxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:54:27 -0800 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> wrote: > In some cases at least if the sender does not completely fill cwnd the > ACKs will be delayed. And IIRC under 2.6.10 with TSO enabled, the > sender does not always fill cwnd. At a maximum, "1/tcp_tso_win_divisor" of the cwnd will ever be left empty. By default, this is 1/8 of the cwnd. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] [NETLINK] unify checkings for clean messages, Patrick McHardy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.6.10 TCP troubles -- suggested patch, Alexey Kuznetsov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |