From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CA7E21F1B6; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:00:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 17so16773181iea.16 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:00:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PTyH1Ug7tIO+lGsqMoroI3wbvkBRWIYzT6sffMfhZLc=; b=j//ZjU4JoCDgKkd8gafVPp6F+GLrOEgTtaBWUiHVUqafnQ59OJNDRLGayMAwKH/ptz VkDeXddUEgSn7ani4NHk4pnIsVjWkBkfZ1zsV+/CxH6NrVPQRlb8yuUA8dt/P0PRZ8SJ Hj3Twk2h/egHug3vpMaM8WnfvqRMowHTp63xLctJYzSNSCqDWsLXp5FEKjYXEItUYjxK nBSnoOYBBOK+UMBA3Pelw6Ec78y2Z+8b7rtzTmdREIQezGck9nNYhI+X9MAOgoy1sFdZ L2XM2WBYVQsnh642zi0KS8MCVPudeajW+pHF1MsOeMCCsNcw/Pkl+PmOgqDLeDnzaZ9d 7SwA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.92.72 with SMTP id bp8mr15201941icc.49.1355256015536; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:00:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.135.39 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:00:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50C77E68.8090507@hp.com> References: <1355245195.27891.108.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <50C77E68.8090507@hp.com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:00:15 +0100 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Rick Jones Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] TCP TFO client behaviour 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, 11 Dec 2012 20:00:16 -0000 On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Rick Jones wrote: > If there are bugs/issues in Linux's TFO (and IIRC, Linux is the only stac= k > with TFO at present) it would probably be best to have that discussion in > netdev. At the very least it will have to "finish" in netdev anyway. > > As for TFO and tools, theoretically, netperf top-of-trunk now has both > client and server side support, though I've not been able to get it > particularly tested as yet. I am however, quite happy to discuss bugs in > netperf's use of TFO here rather than netperf-talk :) > > happy benchmarking, > > rick jones Both the TFO enabled httping and netperf are now checked into the ceropackages-3.3 repo, and will be built on the next build of cerowrt 3.6.X (obviously not fully functional until 3.7) I note that the netperf appears to require that TCP_FASTOPEN be defined by the underlying C library. Mine (glibc and uclibc) haven't caught up yet, from a cursory grep... I will add a patch to define it if not available unless rick beats me to it... (httping just defines it as 23) Are there any other tools/apps available to test TCP_FASTOPEN? I note that I currently fire off netserver via xinetd which I suppose would need to be modified. --=20 Dave T=E4ht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.= html