From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 18 11:47:01 2003 Return-Path: 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 2B95916A4B3 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.115]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A49B43FAF for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:47:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cmascott@att.net) Received: from callisto.local (3.cambridge-02rh16rt.ma.dial-access.att.net[12.91.19.3]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with ESMTP id <20031018184658111006oru7e>; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:46:58 +0000 Received: from callisto.local (localhost.local [127.0.0.1]) by callisto.local (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9IIkuTb000431; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:46:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cmascott@callisto.local) Received: (from cmascott@localhost) by callisto.local (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h9IIktD2000430; Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:46:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:46:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Carl Mascott Message-Id: <200310181846.h9IIktD2000430@callisto.local> To: barney@databus.com In-Reply-To: <20031018021648.GA26182@pit.databus.com> cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TCP window size issues X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:47:01 -0000 Ahhh, that may explain why, during FTP receive of a large file over a 5 KB/s link with a 56 KB recv window, I get one or two dropped packets at the same point every time, and then no further dropped packets for the rest of the transfer. Barney Wolff wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 08:16:32PM -0400, Carl Mascott wrote: > > > > NOTE: AFAIK, 4.4BSD through FreeBSD 4.6-R seem to have done > > alright without the PR 11966 patch, but if someone knows > > different, please speak up. > > I'm not really surprised. I would have thought that a well-behaved > sender would be using congestion avoidance and limiting its transmit > window so that packet drops should be rare, even with an oversize > advertised window. What's surprising is that this sort of tweak is > ever required, other than as a minor optimization.