From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 25 13:59:46 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: fs@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A0316A4DD
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:59:46 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rees@citi.umich.edu)
Received: from citi.umich.edu (citi.umich.edu [141.211.133.111])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1876843D45
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:59:46 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rees@citi.umich.edu)
Received: from citi.umich.edu (dsl093-001-248.det1.dsl.speakeasy.net
	[66.93.1.248]) by citi.umich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DC81BBF0;
	Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:59:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Rees <rees@umich.edu>
To: "Peter Edwards" <peadar.edwards@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <34cb7c840607250309t1b20179icb034cad7e720e7f@mail.gmail.com>
	("Peter Edwards", Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:09:43 BST)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:59:45 -0400
Sender: rees@citi.umich.edu
Message-Id: <20060725135945.94DC81BBF0@citi.umich.edu>
Cc: fs@freebsd.org, rick@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: freebsd4.11 patch for nfs over tcp 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:59:46 -0000

I see by inspecting the code that you are right and the web site I consulted
was wrong.  Don't believe everything you read on the web.

I also see that Nagle himself suggests not using his algorithm with delayed
acks.  It can work, but all the timers have to be just right.

Anyway this bug was fixed a while ago, and I don't think there will be
another 4.x kernel, so there's not much to be done about this.