David S. Miller wrote: > From: "Wael Noureddine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:17:17 -0700 > > >>How do you intend on avoiding huge stretch ACKs? > > > The implication is that stretch ACKs are bad, which is wrong. > Oh yes, that's right, you're the same person who earlier in this > thread tried to teach us that bursty TCPs are non-standard :-) > > Stretch ACKs are actually a positive thing on a healthy connection and > do indeed help the sender. And when loss events occur, LRO stops > immediately and delivers the packets as-is so that loss information > via ACKs with SACK blocks can immediately make their way to the > sender. > > Linux does actually currently generate stretch ACKs, when beneficial.
I do notice that on my own tests, I'm seeing stretch acks of 7 and 8 packets quite often. Is there any intention to add ABC (Accurate Byte Counting) to Linux to offset the effects this has on the cwnd growth? I haven't seen anything critical happening because of this, but it definitely changes the way TCP behaves. Baruch - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
