On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 05:59:54PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 04:14:37PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:12:57PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > > Window size scaling is disabled when an application is issuing a
> > > setsockopt() changing SO_
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:12:57PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:07:00PM +1300, Ben Aitchison wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:39:20PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > yeah I found bumping to 64k made a big difference too, but for my
> > >
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:39:20PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> yeah I found bumping to 64k made a big difference too, but for my
> desktop, i have basically infinite memory, so there's little point
> trying to find the right number. i went to 256k just to measure the
> difference. but this isn't
cc:ing as I don't know if I can actually post to tech@
In my own tests, when I got apalling speeds like that I discovered that the
remote connection had timestamps turned off.
I'm not sure why you're trying to both raise the starting point as well as
the increment speed. As the normal cap is at
