Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757910Ab0GNWNH (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:13:07 -0400 Received: from alternativer.internetendpunkt.de ([88.198.24.89]:42305 "EHLO geheimer.internetendpunkt.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757866Ab0GNWNF (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:13:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:13:01 +0200 From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer To: David Miller Cc: rick.jones2@hp.com, lists@wildgooses.com, davidsen@tmr.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Raise initial congestion window size / speedup slow start? Message-ID: <20100714221301.GI6682@nuttenaction> References: <4C3E0684.5060409@wildgooses.com> <4C3E1B54.40604@hp.com> <20100714203919.GD6682@nuttenaction> <20100714.145547.102555471.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100714.145547.102555471.davem@davemloft.net> X-Key-Id: 98350C22 X-Key-Fingerprint: 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22 X-GPG-Key: gpg --recv-keys --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net 98350C22 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1579 Lines: 37 * David Miller | 2010-07-14 14:55:47 [-0700]: >Although section 3 of RFC 5681 is a great text, it does not say at all >that increasing the initial CWND would lead to fairness issues. Because it is only one side of the medal, probing conservative the available link capacity in conjunction with n simultaneous probing TCP/SCTP/DCCP instances is another. >To be honest, I think google's proposal holds a lot of weight. If >over time link sizes and speeds are increasing (they are) then nudging >the initial CWND every so often is a legitimate proposal. Were >someone to claim that utilization is lower than it could be because of >the currenttly specified initial CWND, I would have no problem >believing them. > >And I'm happy to make Linux use an increased value once it has >traction in the standardization community. Currently I know no working link capacity probing approach, without active network feedback, to conservatively probing the available link capacity with a high CWND. I am curious about any future trends. >But for all we know this side discussion about initial CWND settings >could have nothing to do with the issue being reported at the start of >this thread. :-) ;-) sure, but it is often wise to thwart these kind of discussions. It seems these CWND discussions turn up once every other month. ;-) Hagen -- 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/