Re: TCP capture effect (was Re: Linux TCP impotency)

2001-05-14 Thread Andi Kleen
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 04:15:12PM -0500, Samuel Meder wrote: > I'm seeing a similar effect myself. When I use all my available sdsl > bandwidth (say doing a bulk data transfer), DNS lookups will often > time out. This is with the default buffer settings/2.4.4. The problem is that the DNS resolv

Re: TCP capture effect (was Re: Linux TCP impotency)

2001-05-14 Thread Alan Cox
> I'm curious about this effect so I've been trying to find information > on this and while I can find lots of information on the Ethernet > capture effect there doesn't seem to be anything on the TCP capture > effect. Could someone point me at an explanation of this effect? it is exactly the sam

TCP capture effect (was Re: Linux TCP impotency)

2001-05-14 Thread Samuel Meder
Alan Cox wrote: > > causes the earlier started one to survive and the later to > > starve. Running bcp instead of the second (which uses UDP) at > > 11000 bytes per second caused the utilization in both directions > > to go up nearly to 100%. > > > > Is this a normal TCP stack behaviour? > >

Re: Linux TCP impotency

2001-05-14 Thread tdanis
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 10:54:15PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 09:38:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Using 2.2.19 I discovered that running two simultaneous scp's (uses up whole > > capacity in TCP traffic) on a 115200bps full duplex serial port nullmodem cab

Re: Linux TCP impotency

2001-05-13 Thread bert hubert
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 09:38:53PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Using 2.2.19 I discovered that running two simultaneous scp's (uses up whole > capacity in TCP traffic) on a 115200bps full duplex serial port nullmodem cable > causes the earlier started one to survive and the later to starve. R

Re: Linux TCP impotency

2001-05-13 Thread Alan Cox
> causes the earlier started one to survive and the later to starve. Running bcp > instead of the second (which uses UDP) at 11000 bytes per second caused the > utilization in both directions to go up nearly to 100%. > > Is this a normal TCP stack behaviour? Yes. TCP is not fair. Look up 'captur

Linux TCP impotency

2001-05-13 Thread clock
Using 2.2.19 I discovered that running two simultaneous scp's (uses up whole capacity in TCP traffic) on a 115200bps full duplex serial port nullmodem cable causes the earlier started one to survive and the later to starve. Running bcp instead of the second (which uses UDP) at 11000 bytes per seco