Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:21:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: singh <singh@pdx.edu> Cc: Dave Zarzycki <zarzycki@FreeBSD.ORG>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: RFC: SACK/FACK patch port to Current Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0108262315260.72039-100000@niwun.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0108262259080.72039-100000@niwun.pair.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Mike Silbersack wrote: > I've also noticed that while SACK is sysctl disableable, FACK is not. A > sysctl for FACK should be added as well so that we can enable/disable it > at will (as can be done with newreno.) > > Thanks, > > Mike "Silby" Silbersack To answer my previous question and pose another: FACK is SACK specific, Rate Halving works along with both SACK and non-SACK connections. So, what I wonder is this: Should we be importing SACK and FACK at the same time, or should we import just basic SACK support for now and worry about retransmission algorithms at a later date? I pose this question because SACK seems "safe" in my opinion; it should only be able to make performance better, and will be fairly easy to verify in that aspect. Retransmission algorithms require more study, and could cause new performance problems if not implemented perfectly. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.30.0108262315260.72039-100000>