From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jan 28 19:47:41 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA05308
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from silver.sms.fi (silver.sms.fi [194.111.122.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA05303
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:47:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from pete@localhost) by silver.sms.fi (8.8.3/8.7.3) id FAA26989; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 05:47:24 +0200 (EET)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 05:47:24 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <199701290347.FAA26989@silver.sms.fi>
From: Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi>
To: dg@root.com
Cc: hal@vailsys.com, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: best mtu for lo0? 
In-Reply-To: <199701281936.LAA16507@root.com>
References: <199701281745.TAA25913@silver.sms.fi>
	<199701281936.LAA16507@root.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

David Greenman writes:
 > >Want me to comment on this (I'm not on the hackers list any longer
 > >though)?
 > >
 > >The above still stands true that if you set your TCPWIN < MTU you'll
 > >experience TCP 'deadlock' which ends up being of horrible performance.
 > 
 >    Pete is likely correct that window < MTU is a problem (that's obvious,
 > right?), but he's wrong that this is occuring in recent versions of FreeBSD.
 > The send/receive windows are set to 3*MTU, and for lo0 this is 49152 bytes.
 > 
When did this change? And doesn't the net.inet.tcp.recvspace and
net.inet.tcp.sendspace variables have some doing in this anyway?

Pete