From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:53:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:52:58 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-e.redhat.com ([199.183.24.21]:49156 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:52:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:50:42 -0500 (EST) From: Ingo Molnar To: cc: Rick Jones , Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Is sendfile all that sexy? (fwd)]] In-Reply-To: <200101182030.XAA08626@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote: > Actually, TUX-1.1 (Ingo, do I not lie, did you not kill this code?) > does this. It does not ack quickly, when complete request is received > and still not answered, so that all the redundant acks disappear. (it's TUX 2.0 meanwhile), and yes, TUX uses it. We speculatively delay ACK of parsed input packet in the hope of merging it with the first output packet. If the output frame does not happen for 200 msecs then we send a standalone ACK to be RFC-conform. This way TUX can do single-packet web replies for small requests. (well, plus SYN-ACK and FIN-ACK) Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/