From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb 10 01:57:45 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 35CA616A4CF; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs.huji.ac.il (cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.30])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EC12543D2F; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:57:44 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32] ident=danny)
	by cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp
	id 1AqUeC-000ETG-DE; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:57:40 +0200
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:27:06 +0100 .
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:57:40 +0200
From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>
Message-Id: <E1AqUeC-000ETG-DE@cs.huji.ac.il>
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: TTCP/RFC1644 problem 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:57:45 -0000

> Danny Braniss wrote:
> > hi,
> > 	im running some experiments, and it seems to me that
> > setting net.inet.tcp.rfc1644 has the reverse effect.
> > with sysctl net.inet.tcp.rfc1644 = 0, the transaction uses only 6 packets
> > and it's less than 1 sec, setting net.inet.tcp.rfc1644 to 1 uses
> > 8 packets and takes more than 1 sec.
> 
> The first tcp session in an TTCP connection doesn't gain anything, only
> subsequent session can go faster.
> 

i have tried many. ( > 1), btw, your statement and what my reading of Stevens
don't 'coincide' :-), but then my experiment is not working either.

> You see in the second case that it tries to send data in the packet which
> is not ACKed for the first connection and has to be retransmitted.
> 
> You should check out the second and third connection to the server and
> look how they behave.
> 
> Did you enable rfc1644 on server and client?

yes!

what puzzels me is that with rfc1644 on on both ends it's slower than without 
it.

from Colin's answer i assume that my client is doing the right thing, the 
server
is not.