From: Mika Liljeberg <Mika.Liljeberg@welho.com>
To: Hayden Myers <hayden@spinbox.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.2 to 2.4... serious TCP send slowdowns
Date: 22 Jul 2002 23:32:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1027369975.10556.24.camel@cs180154> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10207221603340.4476-100000@compaq.skyline.net>
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 23:09, Hayden Myers wrote:
> Is it possible the window scaling mechanism is slowing us down. Since the
> connections are so short the window never scales upwards.
I'm pretty sure the window DOES scale upwards. As I said, you didn't
dump the other direction of the connection, which would actually SHOW
the advertised window.
The 6432 you're seeing is the server telling the client how much the
client is allowed send. Only, the client isn't sending anything. You
need to look at what the client is advertising to the server.
> Do you think
> I'd benefit by starting off with a larger window?
I don't think so. The transfer is unlikely to be limited by the
advertised window. Short TCP connections are constrained by the
congestion window, not the advertised window.
> My tests have shown
> that the 2.2 can handle more traffic with our application than the 2.4's
> I've used so far. I would expect the 2.4 to be faster. I imagine it's a
> tuning issue somewhere or an inefficient code issue. I changed the code
> for sending files from the disk across the wire from using read and writen
> to sendfile and set the tcp cork option with setsockopt but contrary to
> everyones messages about it being faster, it slowed things down, more
> noticeably in 2.2.
Not sure why you're seeing a difference here and it's hard to say
without a complete TCP dump. As far as I can see, the halfdump doesn't
exhibit any abnormalities.
This could easily be something completely unrelated to the networking
stack, however. You could be limited by file I/O, for instance. Have you
tried measuring pure TCP throughput without file access?
MikaL
next parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-22 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.10.10207221603340.4476-100000@compaq.skyline.net>
2002-07-22 20:32 ` Mika Liljeberg [this message]
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.10.10207221646120.4476-100000@compaq.skyline.net>
2002-07-22 21:43 ` Mika Liljeberg
2002-07-19 20:09 Nivedita Singhvi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-07-18 23:30 2.2 to 2.4 migration Hayden Myers
2002-07-19 17:04 ` 2.2 to 2.4... serious TCP send slowdowns Hayden Myers
2002-07-20 20:53 ` Alan Cox
2002-07-22 18:47 ` Hayden Myers
2002-07-22 19:51 ` Mika Liljeberg
2002-07-23 7:24 ` Buddy Lumpkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1027369975.10556.24.camel@cs180154 \
--to=mika.liljeberg@welho.com \
--cc=hayden@spinbox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®