From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from omr1.cc.vt.edu (omr1.cc.ipv6.vt.edu [IPv6:2001:468:c80:2105:0:2fc:76e3:30de]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CF4621F3A6 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:30:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mr6.cc.vt.edu (mr6.cc.vt.edu [198.82.141.20] (may be forged)) by omr1.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1CMUBiI013795; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:30:11 -0500 Received: from auth1.smtp.vt.edu (auth1.smtp.vt.edu [198.82.161.152] (may be forged)) by mr6.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1CMU5f6011016; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:30:10 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([IPv6:2001:468:c80:2103:b04a:c2c4:bd78:1dff]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth1.smtp.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1CMU47h007398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:30:05 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 with nmh-1.6+dev To: David Lang In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:46:47 -0800." From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1423780204_1914P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:30:04 -0500 Message-ID: <19788.1423780204@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mr6.cc.vt.edu Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] MTU question X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 22:30:46 -0000 --==_Exmh_1423780204_1914P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:46:47 -0800, David Lang said: > It occured to me as I was driving home last night that if the APs are working to > combine packets into a single transmission due to the high overhead of > independent transmissions, would it possibly improve wifi performance to just > configure a larger MTU? > > Has anyone done any experimentation in this area? It tends to totally ruin latency. Go read up on why things like ssh turn off Nagle. I have no reason to expect the same "leaving stuff in a buffer while we wait for more data to make a full packet" will work any better on Wifi. --==_Exmh_1423780204_1914P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iQIVAwUBVN0pbAdmEQWDXROgAQJJJA//Tcw/96DH7SWIt8cf5pB+QoSYas9Ld+vZ rZz4CAXQNUkTFedLIjTRvqwSkJDrrtjoQS6RgkzeXf18CMIADmf7Y4lCgjytvkPG IFeVVemgdpu7v/ZKDWQijzWjSxXXUmBfA8cfddjEyhL8biu99zGPYJekTpNEqlxN en2HdsIgYKLZFu+HgeF4R1FWVVTJNd/H7jVg3DAZkkAWrurxuVVVb9SVYiFb3ODc dpzgtfN6OwuaZSCJye0exdkLRmJYTOVOsqybsBcDWZ3UOwfj7l2c7vHI6owqZZPK DzCXQyr3y5CASSPBJNdHQMtEcl2SYqCjgSW/f3T5cPEKAPhN/45zJeIVjBs9OwMz DS9pSCfH13AXU96IYhVdNFu3wW6LvD6Jh47DDXdhziilz/lyMHe1kxezzUZYYb8U DCxiaurUOWGz/IqgJsexcPRyY3Dwv4HZle/4HcxdaiAme++sCMuO7zDeu1gGmwiH Rc+1Q8jesc3VaFoF91h1uxNt/Lhy2Umpzog6d0kMsr9XjmZL7CCF09IidhjhodYS zZpz7Q+cWOR+OU29PaG01bKfpopOVlBXwsBuWlb+CZ385A9XsEbjmcDPuhkQznbe PXUFLtRias8cPSUsE3jfp2eX4eYGsoIf0GYNv1xw9kRBFbxNl65MQV749XHOz4zR fuGceqkmIOQ= =TlJO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1423780204_1914P--