Thanks Ilpo for the info!
I am trying out the tests now using timestamps only and without FRTO,
and vice versa and see if there is any change.
Actually, I have also noticed in some of the traces also this behaviour
of FRTO where it mistook a loss as spurious which leads to further
performance
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Oumer Teyeb wrote:
> -If multiple timeouts occur for one packet then even if we are using the
> timestamp option or FRTO TCP linux is not able to detect spurious
> retransmissions... and TCP linux is able to detect spurious retransmissions
> only for a single timeout for one p
Hi David,
My intention when I wrote the second mail was just to provide some more
examples that further elaborate my first question. But as you noticed, I
couldnt resist the temptation to slip in a couple of new questions on
the new post :-(...sorry and will take your advice into consideration
From: Oumer Teyeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:49:28 +0200
> it would be so great if some of you could spare a few minutes and take a
> look at the traces I provided.see below for the original postng...
If people are too backlogged and busy to reply to your original
posting,
Hi,
it would be so great if some of you could spare a few minutes and take a
look at the traces I provided.see below for the original postng...I
just had a couple of things to add which I noticed in linux TCP
behaviour which I have not seen documented anywhere else (or which I
might have
Hi all,
I have some questions regarding Linux TCP in the presence of delays or
packet drops. It is somehow long mail, but the questions are two or
three, just wanted to provide a detailed information so that the problem
is clear. thanx for the patience!!
Best regards,
Oumer
Note that for th
