On 22/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris wrote:
[...]
>> > I ran cvsup again, unfortenatly there was changes in world since the
>> > last cvsup so I have done a new buildworld as well to keep it all
>> > synched and then done a unpatched kernel, after that I have patched
>> > and usin
Chris wrote:
[...]
>> > I ran cvsup again, unfortenatly there was changes in world since the
>> > last cvsup so I have done a new buildworld as well to keep it all
>> > synched and then done a unpatched kernel, after that I have patched
>> > and using testkernel. So far seems to be working fine.
On 22/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris wrote:
> On 22/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> >> p.s. waiting still for releng 6 patch :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Unofficial backport for andre@'s patch. I am testing it on
>> RELENG_6_2
>> >> > but the box is
Chris wrote:
> On 22/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> >> p.s. waiting still for releng 6 patch :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Unofficial backport for andre@'s patch. I am testing it on
>> RELENG_6_2
>> >> > but the box is not heavily loaded, and please note that this is
On 22/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris wrote:
[...]
>> >> p.s. waiting still for releng 6 patch :)
>> >
>> > Unofficial backport for andre@'s patch. I am testing it on RELENG_6_2
>> > but the box is not heavily loaded, and please note that this is
>> > UNOFFICIAL so it's up to you
Chris wrote:
[...]
>> >> p.s. waiting still for releng 6 patch :)
>> >
>> > Unofficial backport for andre@'s patch. I am testing it on RELENG_6_2
>> > but the box is not heavily loaded, and please note that this is
>> > UNOFFICIAL so it's up to you to decide whether you want it.
>>
>> Oops, forgot
On 21/12/06, LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
LI Xin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Chris wrote:
>> I think the opposite, without this patch my send window set to 256k
>> for 'all' connections to allow decent speeds.
>>
>> With the patch most connections will be just 8k in size and some be 256k.
>>
>> so wors
LI Xin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Chris wrote:
>> I think the opposite, without this patch my send window set to 256k
>> for 'all' connections to allow decent speeds.
>>
>> With the patch most connections will be just 8k in size and some be 256k.
>>
>> so worst case scenario with patch during a DOS they wil
Hi,
Chris wrote:
> I think the opposite, without this patch my send window set to 256k
> for 'all' connections to allow decent speeds.
>
> With the patch most connections will be just 8k in size and some be 256k.
>
> so worst case scenario with patch during a DOS they will all use 256k
> windows
On 20/12/06, Jeremie Le Hen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Andre,
Thank you for your work, it looks very exciting !
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:26:03PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> The
> automatic send buffer is not perfect either and has some cases where
> it may allocate too much resources o
Hi Andre,
Thank you for your work, it looks very exciting !
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:26:03PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> The
> automatic send buffer is not perfect either and has some cases where
> it may allocate too much resources of the host to a particular connection.
> OTOH it does muc
On 14/12/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris wrote:
> On 12/12/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is a patch adding automatic TCP send and receive socket buffer
>> sizing.
>> Normally the socket buffers are static (either derived from global
>> defaults
>> or
4日 18:50
收件人: 王晓东
抄送: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
主题: Re: Automatic TCP send and receive socket buffer sizing
The log lines prove that the automatic send buffer sizing was
working. On local high speed networks with very low RTT (<1ms)
the effect is almost not noticeable. On links with higher
bandw
Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 1:30:26 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
AO> The patch is available here (it may apply with some fuzz):
AO> http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/tcp_auto_buf-20061212.diff
AO> Any tests and test reports are very welcome.
Please answer on question fr
Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 1:30:26 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
AO> The patch is available here (it may apply with some fuzz):
AO> http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/tcp_auto_buf-20061212.diff
AO> Any tests and test reports are very welcome.
Please answer on question from Phil Rosenthal:
PR> 1)
Chris wrote:
On 12/12/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a patch adding automatic TCP send and receive socket buffer
sizing.
Normally the socket buffers are static (either derived from global
defaults
or set with setsockopt) and do not adapt to real network conditions. Two
王晓东 wrote:
> I have applied the patch of automatic send buffer sizing.
> My log file is:
> Dec 13 21:54:25 FreeBSD kernel: tcp_output: 202.119.117.246 inc sockbuf, old
> 33304, new 41496, sb_cc 30328, snd_wnd 65160, sendwnd 20308
> Dec 13 21:54:25 FreeBSD kernel: tcp_output: 202.119.117.246 inc soc
I have applied the patch of automatic send buffer sizing.
My log file is:
Dec 13 21:54:25 FreeBSD kernel: tcp_output: 202.119.117.246 inc sockbuf, old
33304, new 41496, sb_cc 30328, snd_wnd 65160, sendwnd 20308
Dec 13 21:54:25 FreeBSD kernel: tcp_output: 202.119.117.246 inc sockbuf, old
41496, new
On 12/12/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a patch adding automatic TCP send and receive socket buffer sizing.
Normally the socket buffers are static (either derived from global defaults
or set with setsockopt) and do not adapt to real network conditions. Two
things happen:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, 13:43+0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Any tests and test reports are very welcome.
> >
> > I saw a question asked several times but no answer: what happens with
> > the sockets when you explicitly call setsockopt() to set a socket
> > buff
Maxim Konovalov wrote:
[...]
Any tests and test reports are very welcome.
I saw a question asked several times but no answer: what happens with
the sockets when you explicitly call setsockopt() to set a socket
buffer size? Is automatic buffer sizing enabled for them?
No. In that case autom
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 02:22:11PM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> [...]
> > Any tests and test reports are very welcome.
>
> I saw a question asked several times but no answer: what happens with
> the sockets when you explicitly call setsockopt() to set a socket
> buffer size? Is automatic buffe
[...]
> Any tests and test reports are very welcome.
I saw a question asked several times but no answer: what happens with
the sockets when you explicitly call setsockopt() to set a socket
buffer size? Is automatic buffer sizing enabled for them?
--
Maxim Konovalov
_
23 matches
Mail list logo
