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 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_SNDBUF or SO_RCVBUF.
>
> tcp_update_sndspace() still rounds up to tp->
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_SNDBUF or SO_RCVBUF.
tcp_update_sndspace() still rounds up to tp->t_maxseg even if
SO_SNDBUF has been set.
I was always wondering why the co
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
> > > desktop, i have basically in
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
> > desktop, i have basically infinite memory, so there's little point
> > trying to find the right num
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
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Ben Aitchison wrote:
> In my own tests, when I got apalling speeds like that I discovered that the
> remote connection had timestamps turned off.
not the problem here.
> I'm not sure why you're trying to both raise the starting point as well as
> the increment sp
here is the patch i have ended up using since the removal of the tcp
sysctls. if something doesn't change, 4.9 will be an embarrassingly bad
regression in network performance. at least with prevous releases,
bumping the recvspace was an available workaround to sucky performance,
but now the s
