Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:50:39 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: Sepherosa Ziehau <sepherosa@gmail.com>, Bjoern Zeeb <bz@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new TCP_IGNOREIDLE socket option Message-ID: <201301291350.39931.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201301241114.40734.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201301221511.02496.jhb@freebsd.org> <5100EAD3.2090006@networx.ch> <201301241114.40734.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:14:40 am John Baldwin wrote: > > > Agree, per-socket option could be useful than global sysctls under > > > certain situation. However, in addition to the per-socket option, > > > could global sysctl nodes to disable idle_restart/idle_cwv help too? > > > > No. This is far too dangerous once it makes it into some tuning guide. > > The threat of congestion breakdown is real. The Internet, or any packet > > network, can only survive in the long term if almost all follow the rules > > and self-constrain to remain fair to the others. What would happen if > > nobody would respect the traffic lights anymore? > > The problem with this argument is Linux has already had this as a tunable > option for years and the Internet hasn't melted as a result. > > > Since this seems to be a burning issue I'll come up with a patch in the > > next days to add a decaying restartCWND that'll be fair and allow a very > > quick ramp up if no loss occurs. > > I think this could be useful. OTOH, I still think the TCP_IGNOREIDLE option > is useful both with and without a decaying restartCWND? *ping* Andre, do you object to adding the new socket option? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201301291350.39931.jhb>