|To:||John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Too aggressive cwnd backoff|
|From:||Baruch Even <baruch@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:33:58 +0100|
|Cc:||"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, werner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|
|References:||<20050407164146.GA6479@xxxxxxxxx> <20050407101653.2cc68db1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <42557895.8040004@xxxxxxxxx> <20050407113121.31b71a94.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504071435450.17545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Debian Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050116)|
John Heffner wrote:
This test looks correct to me. (We never touched it.) It is the bounding parameter specified in rate halving. If you actually get down that far, then rate halving is getting confused, though.
In my tests with either NewReno at high-BDP network settings (300Kbit/s, 120ms delay, BDP = 3200 packets), we always go into this confused mode.It will always upon a drop go to a point between the one-half and one-quarter of the original cwnd, but then, due to performance problems at that point the queue is filled and lots of packets are getting lost in bursts after I disabled throttling, with throttling it goes even below one quarter.
If I understand you correctly this check (that I changed) is correct and should not be changed but rather that the bug is elsewhere. I'll give it another look when I have some more time.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH 2.6.12-rc2] bonding: partially back out dev_set_mac_address, Jay Vosburgh|
|Next by Date:||Re: atomic_dec_and_test for child dst needed in dst_destroy?, Herbert Xu|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] Too aggressive cwnd backoff, John Heffner|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] Too aggressive cwnd backoff, Werner Almesberger|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|