In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Len Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, hackers, I posted this twice in -questions and got no response.
[...]
> FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE #0
FreeBSD-4.4 had terrible performance bugs in the TCP stack, with or
without newreno. Matt Dillon fixed them -- I believe
At 6:05 PM -0400 7/1/02, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>
>Why so many applications go to the trouble to disable Nagle's
>algorithm is beyond me. I suspect the socket option has too
>seductive of a name.
I suspect someone had a specific case where Nagle's algorithm
causes a real problem. They turn on
On Jul 01, at 03:34 PM, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> Then use Dillon's patches, instead of just turning it off. Your
> anecdotal experience with "works better" is just that -- anecdotal.
> It doesn't hold for the general case.
>
> I guess the problem is that the patches are not committed to the
> v
Doug Barton wrote:
> > Then use Dillon's patches, instead of just turning it off.
>
> Dillon's patches were committed, by Dillon. :) My systems still work
> better with newreno off than with it on.
>
> > Your anecdotal experience with "works better" is just that -- anecdotal.
> > It doesn't hold
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> > > I guess you missed the part where I said that FreeBSD had bugs, and
> > > Matt Dillon posted patches?
> >
> > Nope. I think you missed the part where I said I was talking about
> > reality, not theory. :) The reality is, it's br
Doug Barton wrote:
> > I guess you missed the part where I said that FreeBSD had bugs, and
> > Matt Dillon posted patches?
>
> Nope. I think you missed the part where I said I was talking about
> reality, not theory. :) The reality is, it's broken now, and in my
> experience, turning it off make
>
> Yes, I can attest to this an I belive it is actually the case on both
> -current and -releng4 that disabling newreno improves TCP performance.
>
> I belive running an X11 application or scp(1) over a wavelan is a very
> good test-bed for this issue.
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, D J Hawkey Jr wrote:
> Guys, guys... Take 'er easy.
>
> All I asked is what it is, what it does, and the ramifications. Thank you
> both for enlightening me. Really. No sarcasm.
I actually wasn't being sarcastic... You've wandered into a briar patch
of long standing though,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Sierchio writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> Yes, I can attest to this an I belive it is actually the case on both
>> -current and -releng4 that disabling newreno improves TCP performance.
>>
>> I belive running an X11 application or scp(1) over a wavela
On Jul 01, at 01:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > > On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > > The problem is that Terry has described the theory, whereas many of us
> > > > who have observed the situation in the real wor
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> Yes, I can attest to this an I belive it is actually the case on both
> -current and -releng4 that disabling newreno improves TCP performance.
>
> I belive running an X11 application or scp(1) over a wavelan is a very
> good test-bed for this issue.
Wireless breaks a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Doug Barton writ
es:
>On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>> Mike Silbersack wrote:
>> > On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Doug Barton wrote:
>> > > The problem is that Terry has described the theory, whereas many of us
>> > > who have observed the situation in the real wo
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > The problem is that Terry has described the theory, whereas many of us
> > > who have observed the situation in the real world have noticed that even
> > > on a homogenous network (a
Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Doug Barton wrote:
> > The problem is that Terry has described the theory, whereas many of us
> > who have observed the situation in the real world have noticed that even
> > on a homogenous network (all with newreno enabled) performance is still
> > wo
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Doug Barton wrote:
> D J Hawkey Jr wrote:
>
> > I'm guessing that the suggestion to turn it off (the original thread) is
> > valid enough, as all machines referred to were on the same network, else
> > why wouldn't the above still hold true? Or is it a matter of FTP and/or
>
D J Hawkey Jr wrote:
> I'm guessing that the suggestion to turn it off (the original thread) is
> valid enough, as all machines referred to were on the same network, else
> why wouldn't the above still hold true? Or is it a matter of FTP and/or
> SMTP (specifically, sendmail) not playing nice wit
D J Hawkey Jr wrote:
> > If you turn it off, you rat all your firends out in the Prisoner's
> > Dilemma.
> >
> > Congestion control protocols only work if everyone participates.
> >
> >All "Reno TCP" implementations include TCP Fast Retransmit and Fast
> >Recovery algorithms [RFC2581]...
>
On Jul 01, at 09:56 AM, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> D J Hawkey Jr wrote:
> > > You can turn off newreno with the sysctl. I put this in /etc/sysctl.conf
> > > on my machines:
> > >
> > > net.inet.tcp.newreno=0
> >
> > Could you explain what newreno is, in a nutshell, the upshots of using it,
> > and
D J Hawkey Jr wrote:
> > You can turn off newreno with the sysctl. I put this in /etc/sysctl.conf
> > on my machines:
> >
> > net.inet.tcp.newreno=0
>
> Could you explain what newreno is, in a nutshell, the upshots of using it,
> and what the ramifications of turning it off are?
>
> I'm running
On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 12:00 , D J Hawkey Jr wrote:
> Could you explain what newreno is, in a nutshell, the upshots of using
> it,
> and what the ramifications of turning it off are?
http://www.google.com/search?q=tcp+new+reno
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubsc
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Len Conrad wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, hackers, I posted this twice in -questions and got no response.
>>
>> If the problem is newreno, can somebody say how to up just that piece for
>> 4.4 so as to be as non-disruptive, non-dice-rollin
Len Conrad wrote:
>
> Sorry, hackers, I posted this twice in -questions and got no response.
>
> If the problem is newreno, can somebody say how to up just that piece for
> 4.4 so as to be as non-disruptive, non-dice-rolling as possible on this
> otherwise solid machine?
You can turn off newren
22 matches
Mail list logo