That quirk just meant the numbers were off by a few orders of magnitude.
If anyone wants to look at that further, I think there are URLs in the
draft. If not, I can dig them out of the proceedings.
Andrew
--On Tuesday, January 07, 2003 04:08:29 -0300 Werner Almesberger
<wa@almesberger.net> wrote:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>> That's not the problem. The problem is that TCP slow-start itself (and
>> some of the related congestion control stuff) has some issues scaling to
>> the very high end.
>
> I'm very well aware of that ;-) But what you wrote was:
>
>> it takes *hours* without a
>> packet drop to get the window open *all* the way
>
> Or did you mean "after" instead of "without" ? Or maybe "into
> equilibrium" instead of "the window open ..." ? (After all, the
> window isn't only open, but it's been blown off its hinges.)
>
> In any case, your statement accurately describes a somewhat
> surprising quirk in Linux TCP performance as of only a bit more
> than six years ago :)
>
> - Werner
>
> --
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net
> /
> /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/