Re: Very poor TCP/SACK performance

Mark Gray (markgray@iago.nac.net)
09 Sep 1998 04:06:07 -0400


[snip]
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> > One thing you can try to alleviate this situation is to up the default
> > window sizes a bit using the knobs in:

Jeff DeFouw <mrj@i2k.com> writes:
> They're already set to 65535, but I don't understand how increasing a
> window which seems to be showing 30k free affects the retransmit delays.
> Am I reading it wrong or am I just too uneducated on the inner-workings of
> TCP?

I think ppp over modem is a special case where a larger window is very
often bad depending on what hardware is in between --- the reason
(IMO) is that most of window is going to get queued up in your ISP at
the choke point --- their terminal controller/modem hardware --- and a
large window might be big enough to tickle problems on their end.
OpenBSD uses a window of 16384 and I find that that gives me a very
good transfer rate with linux-2.0.* without ever causing stalls which
will occur off and on when using the default Window.

BTW I have noticed one of my ISP's sending "source quench" ICMP
packets on occasion when using the default window (which Stevens says
is deprecated by RFC 1812):

[snip]
DISCUSSION
Research seems to suggest that Source Quench consumes network
bandwidth but is an ineffective (and unfair) antidote to
congestion. See, for example, [INTERNET:9] and [INTERNET:10].
Section [5.3.6] discusses the current thinking on how routers
ought to deal with overload and network congestion.
[snip]

How does Linux react to this?

> --
> Jeff DeFouw <mrj@i2k.com>
> I2K Staff - http://www.i2k.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html