Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:29:49 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Bjoern Zeeb <bz@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new TCP_IGNOREIDLE socket option Message-ID: <5109588D.9070504@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <5109543B.4020304@mu.org> References: <201301221511.02496.jhb@freebsd.org> <201301291350.39931.jhb@freebsd.org> <5108562A.1040603@freebsd.org> <201301301158.33838.jhb@freebsd.org> <5109543B.4020304@mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30.01.2013 18:11, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > 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. Unless OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris/Ilumos also support this it is hardly a majority of Linux/Unix hosts. And this isn't something a "sysadmin" should tune at all. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5109588D.9070504>