Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.195]:61845 "EHLO mout.perfora.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755428Ab3GONmT (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:42:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:42:11 -0400 From: Jim Rees To: "J.Bruce Fields" Cc: NeilBrown , Olga Kornievskaia , NFS Subject: Re: Is tcp autotuning really what NFS wants? Message-ID: <20130715134211.GA14237@umich.edu> References: <20130710092255.0240a36d@notabene.brown> <20130710022735.GI8281@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130710022735.GI8281@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Here's the thread on netdev where we discussed this issue: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=121545498313619&w=2 Here is where I asked about an api to set a socket buf minimum: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=121554794432038&w=2 There are many subtleties, and I suggest anyone who wants to try to fix this code should read the email thread. The netdev people were pretty insistent that we turn on autotuning; David Miller said the old behavior was equivalent to "turn[ing] off half of the TCP stack."