From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 5 11:50:13 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54FD01065670 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:50:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rihad@mail.ru) Received: from mx48.mail.ru (mx48.mail.ru [94.100.176.62]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1A48FC0C for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:50:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [217.25.27.27] (port=45380 helo=[217.25.27.27]) by mx48.mail.ru with asmtp id 1Mum4x-0009Po-00; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:50:11 +0400 Message-ID: <4AC9DD72.9060802@mail.ru> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:50:10 +0500 From: rihad User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090706) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eugene Grosbein References: <4AC8A76B.3050502@mail.ru> <20091005025521.GA52702@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <20091005061025.GB55845@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <4AC9B400.9020400@mail.ru> <20091005090102.GA70430@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <4AC9BC5A.50902@mail.ru> <20091005095600.GA73335@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <20091005100446.GA60244@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20091005100532.GC73335@svzserv.kemerovo.su> <4AC9C88A.5050509@mail.ru> <20091005113037.GA77999@svzserv.kemerovo.su> In-Reply-To: <20091005113037.GA77999@svzserv.kemerovo.su> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: Not detected X-Mras: Ok Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dummynet dropping too many packets X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:50:13 -0000 Eugene Grosbein wrote: > On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 03:20:58PM +0500, rihad wrote: >> Where has TCP slow-start gone? My router box >> isn't some application proxy that starts downloading at full 100 mbit/s >> thus quickly filling client's 1 mbit/s link. It's just a router. > > While there is no or little competition for bandwidth from the router > to clients, TCP would work just fine. I suspect your shaping policy > makes heavy competition between clients. In this case, TCP behaves > not-so-well without help of router's good shaping algorythms > and taildrop is not good one. > Nothing fancy (i.e. no competition). Only tons of per-user pipes simulating the given throughput.