Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC

2015-10-09 Thread hiren panchasara
Resurrecting this old thread. On 04/23/15 at 01:29P, hiren panchasara wrote: > On 03/04/14 at 10:22P, hiren panchasara wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Lawrence Stewart > > wrote: > > > > > > > I lost the battle of wills on this topic and 10.0 shipped with IW10 > > > enabled by defau

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC

2015-04-23 Thread hiren panchasara
On 03/04/14 at 10:22P, hiren panchasara wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > > > > I lost the battle of wills on this topic and 10.0 shipped with IW10 > > enabled by default :( > > > > As for having it configurable, it is a trivial patch which perhaps, > > Hiren, yo

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC

2014-03-04 Thread hiren panchasara
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > I lost the battle of wills on this topic and 10.0 shipped with IW10 > enabled by default :( > > As for having it configurable, it is a trivial patch which perhaps, > Hiren, you might be willing to take a stab at? I obviously did not > man

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC

2014-03-04 Thread Lawrence Stewart
On 03/04/14 13:10, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 5/03/2014 6:39 AM, hiren panchasara wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Lawrence Stewart >> wrote: >>> On 08/15/13 02:44, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 14.08.2013 04:36, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > Hi Andre, > > [RE team is BCCed so t

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC

2014-03-04 Thread Kubilay Kocak
On 5/03/2014 6:39 AM, hiren panchasara wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Lawrence Stewart > wrote: >> On 08/15/13 02:44, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> On 14.08.2013 04:36, Lawrence Stewart wrote: Hi Andre, [RE team is BCCed so they're aware of this discussion] On 07/

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC

2014-03-04 Thread hiren panchasara
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > On 08/15/13 02:44, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> On 14.08.2013 04:36, Lawrence Stewart wrote: >>> Hi Andre, >>> >>> [RE team is BCCed so they're aware of this discussion] >>> >>> On 07/06/13 00:58, Andre Oppermann wrote: Author: andre >>>

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC

2013-08-14 Thread Lawrence Stewart
On 08/15/13 02:44, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 14.08.2013 04:36, Lawrence Stewart wrote: >> Hi Andre, >> >> [RE team is BCCed so they're aware of this discussion] >> >> On 07/06/13 00:58, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> Author: andre >>> Date: Fri Jul 5 14:58:24 2013 >>> New Revision: 252789 >>> URL: h

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC (was: Re: svn commit: r252789 - stable/9/sys/netinet)

2013-08-14 Thread Eggert, Lars
Oh: The other interesting bit is that Chrome defaulted to telling the server to use IW32 if it had no cached value... I think Google are still heavily tweaking the mechanisms. Lars On Aug 14, 2013, at 16:46, "Eggert, Lars" wrote: > Hi, > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:36, Lawrence Stewart wrote:

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC

2013-08-14 Thread Eggert, Lars
Hi, On Aug 14, 2013, at 17:27, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > Do you recall if they said > how many flows made up the CDF? I think "very many" - check out the audio archive or the minutes of the meeting, it should have the details. Lars signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP usin

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC

2013-08-14 Thread Andre Oppermann
On 14.08.2013 04:36, Lawrence Stewart wrote: Hi Andre, [RE team is BCCed so they're aware of this discussion] On 07/06/13 00:58, Andre Oppermann wrote: Author: andre Date: Fri Jul 5 14:58:24 2013 New Revision: 252789 URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/252789 Log: MFC r242266:

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC

2013-08-14 Thread Lawrence Stewart
Hi Lars, On 08/14/13 18:46, Eggert, Lars wrote: > Hi, > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:36, Lawrence Stewart wrote: >> I don't think this change should have been MFCed, at least not in its >> current form. > > FYI, Google's own data as presented in the HTTPBIS working group of the > recent Berlin IET

Re: TCP Initial Window 10 MFC (was: Re: svn commit: r252789 - stable/9/sys/netinet)

2013-08-14 Thread Eggert, Lars
Hi, On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:36, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > I don't think this change should have been MFCed, at least not in its > current form. FYI, Google's own data as presented in the HTTPBIS working group of the recent Berlin IETF shows that 10 is too high for ~25% of their web connections: