Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 12:11:23 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Bjoern Zeeb <bz@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new TCP_IGNOREIDLE socket option Message-ID: <5109543B.4020304@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <201301301158.33838.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201301221511.02496.jhb@freebsd.org> <201301291350.39931.jhb@freebsd.org> <5108562A.1040603@freebsd.org> <201301301158.33838.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/30/13 11:58 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:07:22 pm Andre Oppermann wrote: >> >> Yes, unfortunately I do object. This option, combined with the inflated >> CWND at the end of a burst, effectively removes much, if not all, of the >> congestion control mechanisms originally put in place to allow multiple >> [TCP] streams co-exist on the same pipe. Not having any decay or timeout >> makes it even worse by doing this burst after an arbitrary amount of time >> when network conditions and the congestion situation have certainly changed. > You have completely ignored the fact that Linux has had this as a global > option for years and the Internet has not melted. A socket option is far more > fine-grained than their tunable (and requires code changes, not something a > random sysadmin can just toggle as "tuning"). I agree with John here. While Andre's objection makes sense, since the majority of Linux/Unix hosts now have this as a global option I can't think of why you would force FreeBSD to be a final holdout. -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5109543B.4020304>