From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 21 22: 7:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from implode.root.com (root.com [209.102.106.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2136C14F95 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:07:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from root@implode.root.com) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA16761; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:03:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199904220503.WAA16761@implode.root.com> To: Alex Rousskov Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: _Some_ acks delayed for 200 msec? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:05:15 MDT." From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:03:40 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >Now, if that is the infamous delayed ack problem, then > - why only *some* acks are delayed? Probably because of timing of the response packets. It's impossible to say with your limited, one-sided tcpdump. > - why Nagle-like optimization is used on a switched (no routing) > network? The Nagle algorithm doesn't know or care about "local" networks. > - why disabling Nagle (TCP_NODELAY) does not help? It will likely have to be disabled on both sides for your application since there appears to be a syncronous request/response involved. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message