On 10.02.2013 11:36, Andrey Zonov wrote:
On 2/10/13 9:05 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
This is a subject rather near to my heart, having fought battles with
congestion back in the dark days of Windows when it essentially
defaulted to TCPIGNOREIDLE. It was a huge pain, but it was the only
way Windows did TCP in the early days. It simply did not implement
slow-start. This was really evil, but in the days when lots of links
were 56K and T-1 was mostly used for network core links, the Internet,
small as it was back then, did not melt, though it glowed a
frightening shade of red fairly often. Today too many systems running
like this would melt thins very quickly.
Google made many many TCP tweaks. Increased initial window, small RTO,
enabled ignore after idle and others. They published that, other people
just blindly applied these tunings and the Internet still works.
In general Google does provide quite a bit of data with their experiments
showing that it isn't harmful and that it helps the case.
Smaller RTO (1s) has become a RFC so there was very broad consensus in
TCPM that is a good thing. We don't have it yet because we were not fully
compliant in one case (loss of first segment). I've fixed that a while
back and will bring 1s RTO soon to HEAD.
I'm pretty sure that Google doesn't ignore idle on their Internet facing
servers. They may have proposed a decay mechanism in the past. I'd have
to check the TCPM archives for that.
--
Andre
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
