On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Bendik Rønning Opstad
wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
>> > More generally, my sense is that we should tweak the is_cwnd_limited code
>> > to
>> > shift from saying "set is_cwnd_limited to true iff the cwnd is known to be
>> > limi
Neal, Eric, sorry for the late replies, but keeping up with your speedy replies
is a full time job :-)
The packetdrill scripts are certainly useful to test this, so thanks for
supplying those!
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 04:04:37 PM you wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Neal Cardwell
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> More generally, my sense is that we should tweak the is_cwnd_limited code to
> shift from saying "set is_cwnd_limited to true iff the cwnd is known to be
> limiting transmits" to saying "set is_cwnd_limited to true iff the packets in
> flight
> I'll describe two example scenarios in detail. In both scenarios we are in
> congestion avoidance after experiencing loss. Nagle is disabled.
Thanks for the detailed follow-up! And thanks, Eric, for the packetdrill
script!
This looks like an issue of how to deal with the case when we run out of
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 09:09 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 07:46 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> >
> > Ahem.
> >
> > packetdrill can make this in one script, as you can exactly control the
> > packets that the 'remote' peer would answer.
> >
> > No need for complex setup. You
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 07:46 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Ahem.
>
> packetdrill can make this in one script, as you can exactly control the
> packets that the 'remote' peer would answer.
>
> No need for complex setup. You should try it, and as a bonus we could
> easily reproduce the problem an
On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 16:29 +0200, Bendik Rønning Opstad wrote:
> > Thanks for this report!
>
> Thank you for answering!
>
> > When you say "CWND is reduced due to loss", are you talking about RTO
> > or Fast Recovery? Do you have any traces you can share that illustrate
> > this issue?
>
> The
> Thanks for this report!
Thank you for answering!
> When you say "CWND is reduced due to loss", are you talking about RTO
> or Fast Recovery? Do you have any traces you can share that illustrate
> this issue?
The problem is not related to loss recovery, but only occurs in congestion
avoidance s
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Bendik Rønning Opstad
wrote:
>
> Application limited streams such as thin streams, that transmit small
> amounts of payload in relatively few packets per RTT, are prevented from
> growing the CWND after experiencing loss. This leads to increased
> sojourn times for
Application limited streams such as thin streams, that transmit small
amounts of payload in relatively few packets per RTT, are prevented from
growing the CWND after experiencing loss. This leads to increased
sojourn times for data segments in streams that often transmit
time-dependent data.
After
10 matches
Mail list logo
