From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [IPv6:2001:67c:29f4::29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D91021F21E for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 02:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pannekake.samfundet.no ([2001:67c:29f4::50] ident=unknown) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YkUGJ-000148-00 for bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:14:35 +0200 Received: from sesse by pannekake.samfundet.no with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YkUGI-00048k-PM for bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:14:34 +0200 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:14:34 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: <20150421091434.GA9960@sesse.net> References: <75C1DDFF-FBD2-4825-A167-92DFCF6A7713@gmail.com> <8AD4493E-EA21-496D-923D-B4257B078A1C@gmx.de> <8E4F61CA-4274-4414-B4C0-F582167D66D6@gmx.de> <2C987A4B-7459-43C1-A49C-72F600776B00@gmail.com> <14cd9e74e48.27f7.e972a4f4d859b00521b2b659602cb2f9@superduper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux 3.18.4 on a x86_64 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [Bloat] DSLReports Speed Test has latency measurement built-in X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:15:07 -0000 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 05:35:32PM +1000, jb wrote: > And I can't offer an option, because the server receive window (I think) > cannot be set on a case by case basis. You set it for all TCP and forget it. You can set both send and receive buffers using a setsockopt() call (SO_SNDBUF, SO_RCVBUF). I would advise against it, though; hardly anyone does it (except the ones that did so to _increase_ the buffer 10-15 years ago, which now is thoroughly superseded by auto-tuning and thus a pessimization), and if the point of the test is to identify real-world performance, you shouldn't do workarounds. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/