From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 25 14:53:17 2006 Return-Path: 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 4FA6C16A506 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:53:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peadar.edwards@gmail.com) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.228]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF1943E92 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:50:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peadar.edwards@gmail.com) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i23so807481wra for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:50:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tV6oLKrTdK5h/WAWpjOXm9EW7wShZo8qOUy/LrJkxgwEEuTEk+Pl45BzcsvqO/v0M9yNisWl3Tx4UKS/3V0itwWPWedn6KDVLdWCxqqSfyBWIkPVQEnHveqc8YMT/JTXZdl/DOcFXSYyp3bOJZWvazvYeqUFlWVm/I32vd2z5uk= Received: by 10.64.3.9 with SMTP id 9mr4400321qbc; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.139.8 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <34cb7c840607250750u1590d371w6655cc60a8736be6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:50:47 +0100 From: "Peter Edwards" To: "Jim Rees" In-Reply-To: <20060725135945.94DC81BBF0@citi.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <34cb7c840607250309t1b20179icb034cad7e720e7f@mail.gmail.com> <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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:53:17 -0000 On 7/25/06, Jim Rees wrote: > 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 always point people at "Rethinking the TCP Nagle Algorithm" (Mogul & Minshall) when this comes up. It's a nice readable paper on the issues and some propsed solutions. http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigcomm/ccr/archive/2001/jan01/ccr-200101-mogul.pdf > 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. > Absolutely. just setting things straight "for the record."