Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:52:23 +0000
From: Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: eli@dev.mellanox.co.il
Cc: eli@dev.mellanox.co.il, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-net@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: UDP packets loss
Message-ID: <20061116235223.78f13473@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <18154.194.90.237.34.1163703097.squirrel@dev.mellanox.co.il>
References: <60157.89.139.64.58.1163542548.squirrel@dev.mellanox.co.il>
	<18154.194.90.237.34.1163703097.squirrel@dev.mellanox.co.il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1086
Lines: 24

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:51:37 +0200 (IST)
eli@dev.mellanox.co.il wrote:

> eventually slow the whole thing to a rate such all parts can handle. But
> is there a way to overcome this situation and to avoid packets drop? If
> this would happen then TCP would work at higher rates as well?? Perhaps
> increase buffers sizes?

Increased buffer sizes can actually paradoxically make the situation
worse. Van Jacobson once claimed that those who do not understand TCP are
doomed to re-invent it.

If you have a very controlled environment then there are alternative flow
control approaches including counting approaches when you know the
underlying transport is basically reliable (or you can tolerate minor
loss). That's roughly speaking the equivalent of TCP with fixed windows
and knowing that the buffering worst cases are the end points.

Alan
-
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/