From owner-freebsd-net Sun Aug 26 20:21:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from niwun.pair.com (niwun.pair.com [209.68.2.70]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B24C537B40C for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:21:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 74277 invoked by uid 3193); 27 Aug 2001 03:21:34 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Aug 2001 03:21:34 -0000 Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:21:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Silbersack X-Sender: To: singh Cc: Dave Zarzycki , Alfred Perlstein , Subject: Re: RFC: SACK/FACK patch port to Current In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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