From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jan 11 16:39:43 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA25151
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:39:43 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA25071
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:39:09 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from root@implode.root.com)
Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA04324;
	Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199801120037.QAA04324@implode.root.com>
To: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>
cc: Snob Art Genre <benedict@echonyc.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: why 100 byte TCP segments? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:33:15 MST."
             <Pine.BSF.3.95.980111162702.10734e-100000@alive.znep.com> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:37:51 -0800
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

>Aha.    Yes, section 14.11.
>
>He suggests either knocking MINCLSIZE down to 101, increasing the
>size of a mbuf from 128 to 256 bytes, or changing sosend to avoid
>sending multiple packets when mbufs (instead of mbuf clusters) are
>being used.
>
>The last one may be a better solution, but the first is easier.
>I can't see much in the way of bad side effects offhand to changing
>MINCLSIZE... certainly not compared to how annoying this is.  It sucks
>when it triggers slow start or Nagle especially with delayed acks.

   I seem to recall trying that and finding that there are bad side effects,
but that was a few years ago, so my memory may be faulty.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project