Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 14:07:59 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Significant TCP work committed to head - CUBIC & H-TCP committed Message-ID: <id85n3$pcc$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <4CF788D7.8020905@freebsd.org> References: <4CDD0A71.7020708@freebsd.org> <4CF788D7.8020905@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/02/10 12:53, Lawrence Stewart wrote: > For the really interested (by now I suspect my audience is down to 0, > but still), you might want to load siftr and enable/disable it during > each test run and make your very own plot of cwnd vs time to see what's > really going on behind the scenes. > > Ok that's enough for now, but much more is on the way. Please let me > know if you have any feedback or run into any problems related to this work. Hi, My question isn't very constructive but I'd like to know more about this topic. Have you seen this: http://blog.benstrong.com/2010/11/google-and-microsoft-cheat-on-slow.html http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/11/26/1729218/Google-Microsoft-Cheat-On-Slow-Start-mdash-Should-You ? In short: is the existance of slow-start a property of (New)Reno and will some of the new algorithms make it less "cautious", i.e. faster? I don't think it's critical but I'm often noticing it, especially on bulk transfers over LAN.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?id85n3$pcc$1>