From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 21 00:44:14 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A5DF30; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 00:44:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BA372CD3; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 00:44:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jre-mbp.elischer.org (ppp121-45-246-96.lns20.per2.internode.on.net [121.45.246.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r9L0i4mP085117 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:44:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <526478D0.1000601@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:44:00 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Colin Percival , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LRO causing stretch ACK violations interacts badly with delayed ACKing References: <52605EC9.6090406@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <52605EC9.6090406@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 21 Oct 2013 00:44:14 -0000 On 10/18/13 6:03 AM, Colin Percival wrote: > Hi all, > > I know {TSO, LRO, ACKing policy} has been discussed here recently, and I don't > want to rehash everything, but I'm seeing some very bad misbehaviour with LRO > and delayed ACKing turned on. > > Running 'fetch -o /dev/null https://www.amazon.com/' on an EC2 instance running [...] is this just for -current? > Out of 142 ms that this TCP connection is alive, 100 ms was wasted. This seems > like something which ought to be fixed... >