From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
To: jt@hpl.hp.com
Cc: linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PPP feature request (Tx queue len + close)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:20:49 +1100 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15492.21937.402798.688693@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020304191947.A32730@bougret.hpl.hp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020304144200.A32397@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <15492.13788.572953.6546@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20020304191947.A32730@bougret.hpl.hp.com>
Jean Tourrilhes writes:
> IrTTP is another problem. If I were to use TCP instead of
> IrTTP, would you still ask me to reduce the window size of TCP ? Let's
Yes, absolutely. :) It just takes an ioctl to do that for TCP.
> try to be fair...
> I'm taking the approach that every little thing helps. There
> is a trivial win in PPP, and I would be stupid to not exploit it.
Given that the default queue length is only 3 packets for PPP, it
seems to me to be a very minor win. I don't think we could reduce it
below 1 packet, and I'm not sure whether that would have other
negative consequences. This is one reason why I asked if you had
tried it.
> I must have missed this option. I'll look again in the pppd
> man page. That may be good enough...
It doesn't exist at the moment, but it would be easy enough to add
it. In the short term, you could even add an ifconfig to your
/etc/ppp/ip-up script to set the transmit queue length there.
> > Could you produce some numbers showing better throughput, fewer
> > retransmissions, or whatever, with a smaller transmit queue length?
>
> Don't have number, but I don't need number to know that.
Your case for wanting something done will be so much stronger if you
show that there is a measurable benefit as opposed to just a gut
feeling. :)
My gut feeling is that the transmit queue length is already about as
short as we want it, and that if we make it any shorter then we will
start dropping a lot of packets at the transmit queue, and lose
performance because of that. But I could be wrong - any networking
gurus care to comment?
Paul.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-05 5:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-04 22:42 Jean Tourrilhes
2002-03-05 0:55 ` James Stevenson
2002-03-05 1:01 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2002-03-05 3:05 ` Paul Mackerras
2002-03-05 3:19 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2002-03-05 18:13 ` Maksim Krasnyanskiy
2002-03-05 18:28 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2002-03-05 19:15 ` James Carlson
2002-03-05 19:27 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2002-03-05 21:49 ` James Carlson
2002-03-05 21:17 ` Maksim Krasnyanskiy
2002-03-05 21:27 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2002-03-05 5:20 ` Paul Mackerras [this message]
2002-03-05 17:45 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2002-03-05 19:39 ` Maksim Krasnyanskiy
2002-03-05 20:23 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2002-03-05 22:48 ` Bill Davidsen
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=15492.21937.402798.688693@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com \
--to=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=jt@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ppp@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®