Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 13:45:00 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Niu Zhixiong <kaiaixi@gmail.com>, Bill Yuan <bycn82@gmail.com> Subject: Re: A problem on TCP in High RTT Environment. Message-ID: <20140809204500.GG83475@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <8AE1AC56-D52F-4F13-AAA3-BB96042B37DD@lurchi.franken.de> References: <CAOENNMA_CiBDJc0kchzUbTcf_JBwTJPF=PdBAUB6FPo-KzYkeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140809184232.GF83475@funkthat.com> <8AE1AC56-D52F-4F13-AAA3-BB96042B37DD@lurchi.franken.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Tuexen wrote this message on Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 21:51 +0200:
>
> On 09 Aug 2014, at 20:42, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> wrote:
>
> > Niu Zhixiong wrote this message on Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 20:34 +0800:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> Last month, I send problems related to FTP/TCP in a high RTT environment.
> >> After that, I setup a simulation environment(Dummynet) to test TCP and SCTP
> >> in high delay environment. After finishing the test, I can see TCP is
> >> always slower than SCTP. But, I think it is not possible. (Plz see the
> >> figure in the attachment). When the delay is 200ms(means RTT=400ms).
> >> Besides, the TCP is extremely slow.
> >>
> >> ALL BW=20Mbps, DELAY= 0 ~ 200MS, Packet LOSS = 0 (by dummynet)
> >>
> >> This is my parameters:
> >> FreeBSD vfreetest0 10.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE #0: Thu Aug 7
> >> 11:04:15 HKT 2014
> >>
> >> sysctl net.inet.tcp
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> net.inet.tcp.recvbuf_auto: 0
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> net.inet.tcp.sendbuf_auto: 0
> >
> > Try enabling this... This should allow the buffer to grow large enough
> > to deal w/ the higher latency...
> >
> > Also, make sure your program isn't setting the recv buffer size as that
> > will disable the auto growing...
> I think the program sets the buffer to 2MB, which it also does for SCTP.
> So having both statically at the same size makes sense for the comparison.
> I remember that there was a bug in the combination of LRO and delayed ACK,
> which was fixed, but I don't remember it was fixed before 10.0...
Sounds like disabling LRO and TSO would be a useful test to see if that
improves things... But hiren said that the fix made it, so...
> > If you use netstat -a, you should be able to see the send-q on the
> > sender grow as necessary...
Also, getting the send-q output while it's running would let us know
if the buffer is getting to 2MB or not...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140809204500.GG83475>