From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jul 13 7:52:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDFC37B403 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:52:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f6DEqSJ00541; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:52:28 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:52:28 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Leo Bicknell Cc: Paul Robinson , Julian Elischer , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Network performance tuning. Message-ID: <20010713095228.C222@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20010711195021.A89324@ussenterprise.ufp.org> <20010712175539.B93119@jake.akitanet.co.uk> <20010712210944.A73446@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010712210944.A73446@ussenterprise.ufp.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.19i X-OS: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In the last episode (Jul 12), Leo Bicknell said: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 05:55:39PM +0100, Paul Robinson wrote: > > When I asked about SACK about 18 months ago (IIRC), the general > > consensus was that it was a pile of crap, and that FBSD SHOULDN'T > > implement it if possible. I however, agree that there are a lot of > > things in SACK that would massively benefit FBSD's net performance. Considering that w2k and Linux both have sack enabled by default, it's not going away. Do you have a link to the thread that says sack doesn't help? > Does anyone know if Luigi's patches at > http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/sack.html ever got wider use than his > own testing? It looks like it was written some time ago, and if > people have been running it since then there might be some real world > data. It was for 2.1.6, but I had patches to make it work on 2.2.* and 3.0, but then the TCP stack changed enough that I couldn't keep it working. I didn't have any problems with it in the couple of years I had it on my system. There was a post in June on the -net mailinglist from a guy that is working on getting SACK into -STABLE, so there's hope yet. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message