From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265267AbUGGSHP (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:07:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265264AbUGGSHP (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:07:15 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:15822 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265263AbUGGSHM (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2004 14:07:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:06:53 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: "David S. Miller" Cc: bert hubert , jamie@shareable.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix tcp_default_win_scale. Message-Id: <20040707110653.7c49bef1@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> In-Reply-To: <20040706154907.422a6b73.davem@redhat.com> References: <20040629222751.392f0a82.davem@redhat.com> <20040630152750.2d01ca51@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <20040630153049.3ca25b76.davem@redhat.com> <20040701133738.301b9e46@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <20040701140406.62dfbc2a.davem@redhat.com> <20040702013225.GA24707@conectiva.com.br> <20040706093503.GA8147@outpost.ds9a.nl> <20040706114741.1bf98bbe@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <20040706194034.GA11021@mail.shareable.org> <20040706131235.10b5afa8.davem@redhat.com> <20040706224453.GA6694@outpost.ds9a.nl> <20040706154907.422a6b73.davem@redhat.com> Organization: Open Source Development Lab X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-Face: &@E+xe?c%:&e4D{>f1O<&U>2qwRREG5!}7R4;D<"NO^UI2mJ[eEOA2*3>(`Th.yP,VDPo9$ /`~cw![cmj~~jWe?AHY7D1S+\}5brN0k*NE?pPh_'_d>6;XGG[\KDRViCfumZT3@[ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I do not argue with that the correct thing to do is to use window scaling and find/fix the poor sop's stuck behind busted networks. But: isn't it better to have just one sysctl parameter set (tcp_rmem) and set the window scale as needed rather than increasing the already bewildering array of dials and knobs? I can't see why it would be advantageous to set a window scale of 7 if the largest possible window ever offered is limited to a smaller value?