On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 02:00:31PM -0600, Alan Somers wrote:
So I benchmarked all available congestion control algorithms for
single download streams. The results are summarized in the table
below.
Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but I note your testing was with
single streams. What ar
> On 19. Jul 2024, at 05:07, Junho Choi wrote:
>
> RACK is a loss detection algorithm and BBR is a congestion control algorithm
> so it's on a different layer.
> e.g. linux can configure them independently.
>
> However in FreeBSD it looks like it is using the same configuration sysctl
> (net.i
RACK is a loss detection algorithm and BBR is a congestion control
algorithm so it's on a different layer.
e.g. linux can configure them independently.
However in FreeBSD it looks like it is using the same configuration sysctl
(net.inet.tcp.functions_default=tcp_rack|tcp_bbr),
so not able to set i
> On 18. Jul 2024, at 20:37, Alan Somers wrote:
>
> Coexist how? Do you mean that one socket can use one and a different
> socket uses the other? That makes sense.
Correct.
Best regards
Michael
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 10:34 AM wrote:
>>
>>> On 18. Jul 2024, at 15:00, Junho Choi wrote:
Coexist how? Do you mean that one socket can use one and a different
socket uses the other? That makes sense.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 10:34 AM wrote:
>
> > On 18. Jul 2024, at 15:00, Junho Choi wrote:
> >
> > Alan - this is a great result to see. Thanks for experimenting.
> >
> > Just curious
> On 18. Jul 2024, at 16:03, Alan Somers wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:27 PM wrote:
>>
>>> On 17. Jul 2024, at 22:00, Alan Somers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 1:50 AM wrote:
> On 13. Jul 2024, at 01:43, Alan Somers wrote:
>
> I've been experimenting wi
> On 18. Jul 2024, at 15:00, Junho Choi wrote:
>
> Alan - this is a great result to see. Thanks for experimenting.
>
> Just curious why bbr and rack don't co-exist? Those are two separate things.
> Is it a current bug or by design?
Technically RACK and BBR can coexist. The problem was with pf an
> On 18. Jul 2024, at 15:00, Junho Choi wrote:
>
> Alan - this is a great result to see. Thanks for experimenting.
>
> Just curious why bbr and rack don't co-exist? Those are two separate things.
> Is it a current bug or by design?
Technically RACK and BBR can coexist. The problem was with pf an
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:27 PM wrote:
>
> > On 17. Jul 2024, at 22:00, Alan Somers wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 1:50 AM wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 13. Jul 2024, at 01:43, Alan Somers wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I've been experimenting with RACK and BBR. In my environment, they
> >>> can dramatical
I'm not sure what you're asking. BBR and RACK are two different
algorithms that accomplish the same thing. It wouldn't make sense to
use both on the same socket at the same time.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 7:01 AM Junho Choi wrote:
>
> Alan - this is a great result to see. Thanks for experimenting
Alan - this is a great result to see. Thanks for experimenting.
Just curious why bbr and rack don't co-exist? Those are two separate things.
Is it a current bug or by design?
BR,
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:27 AM wrote:
> > On 17. Jul 2024, at 22:00, Alan Somers wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2
> On 17. Jul 2024, at 22:00, Alan Somers wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 1:50 AM wrote:
>>
>>> On 13. Jul 2024, at 01:43, Alan Somers wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been experimenting with RACK and BBR. In my environment, they
>>> can dramatically improve single-stream TCP performance, which is
>>>
On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 1:50 AM wrote:
>
> > On 13. Jul 2024, at 01:43, Alan Somers wrote:
> >
> > I've been experimenting with RACK and BBR. In my environment, they
> > can dramatically improve single-stream TCP performance, which is
> > awesome. But pf interferes. I have to disable pf in ord
13 matches
Mail list logo
