Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:59:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:58:50 -0400 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:4358 "EHLO deathstar.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:58:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:59:09 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen Message-Id: <200110152059.f9FKx9q00507@deathstar.prodigy.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: TCP acking too fast X-Newsgroups: linux.dev.kernel In-Reply-To: <3BC8DAF0.3D16A546@welho.com> Organization: Prodigy http://www.prodigy.com/ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <3BC8DAF0.3D16A546@welho.com> Mika.Liljeberg@welho.com wrote: >I've already disabled quickacks, replaced the receive MSS estimate with >advertised MSS in the ack sending policy (two places), and removed one >dubious "immediate ack" condition from send_delay_ack(). The annoying >thing is that none of this seem to make any real difference. I must be >missing something huge that's right in front of my nose, but I'm >starting to run out of steam. > >Any thoughts on this? The discussion has been most complete, I guess at this point is you can't fix the sender to stop this anti-social behaviour, you might try using iptables to "mangle" the PSH off from this host or rate limit the ACKs, or some other hack. None of which is a "solution," just some interesting things to try. As noted, the core problem is that TCP doesn't like really asymmetric bandwidth. -- bill davidsen "If I were a diplomat, in the best case I'd go hungry. In the worst case, people would die." -- Robert Lipe - 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/