Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:23:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:23:14 -0500 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:14022 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:23:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:19:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20030203.211933.27826107.davem@redhat.com> To: greearb@candelatech.com Cc: john@grabjohn.com, cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com, ahu@ds9a.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: problems achieving decent throughput with latency. From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <3E3EAF04.9010308@candelatech.com> References: <200302031611.h13GBl9D019119@darkstar.example.net> <3E3EAF04.9010308@candelatech.com> X-FalunGong: Information control. X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) 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 Content-Length: 942 Lines: 22 From: Ben Greear Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:03:48 -0800 Also, if it's as simple as allocating a few more buffers for tcp, maybe we should consider defaulting to higher in the normal kernel? (I'm not suggesting **my** numbers..) The current values are the only "safe" defaults. Here "safe" means that if you have thousands of web connections, clients cannot force the serve to queue large amounts of traffic per socket. The attack goes something like: Open N thousand connections to server, ask for large static object, do not ACK any of the data packets. Server must thus hold onto N thousnad * maximum socket write buffer bytes amount of memory. - 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/