From: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
To: Richard Brown <richard.e.brown@dartware.com>
Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
<cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Infoworld: Google thoughts about speeding up internet
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:06:46 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F1F2B76.4040101@freedesktop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6B6AFDDC-DA88-4C49-B9BA-A5AC9BD5DC47@intermapper.com>
On 01/24/2012 04:50 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
> Infoworld has an article that points to a Google Blog that has a few suggestions for speeding up TCP connections.
>
> Infoworld: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/012412-google-looks-to-speed-up-255231.html
> Google Blog: http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/lets-make-tcp-faster.html#comment-form
>
> It seems that these suggestions (which include increasing initial congestion window to 10 packets, and decreasing initial timeout to one second) would make bufferbloat worse in the outbound direction.
>
> I am somewhat relieved that there are a couple comments to this effect in the blog page above. I don't know if the author understands the bufferbloat problem fully, though.
>
> Rich Brown
> Hanover, NH
>
I'll be talking with several Googler's about this next week. I sent
mail, as their blogger site defeated me. Youchung Cheng got back to me
promptly a few minutes ago.
I already wrote an ID about #1; IW 10 I think is evil unless
correspondingly fewer connections are used to make the situation no
worse than it already is for transient bufferbloat.
I'm actually most worried about #2; reducing the open timeout in the
face of what netalyzr shows would be a real bummer I would guess.
I have no problems with #3.
#4 might or might not be ok, but I think should be studied more
carefully in light of bufferbloat and the fact that congestion avoidance
is already having severe indigestion given the size of the buffers.
Most people have been simulating the Internet the way it should be,
rather than the way it actually is, unfortunately.
- jim
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-24 22:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.0.1327435202.3083.cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
2012-01-24 21:50 ` Richard Brown
2012-01-24 22:06 ` Jim Gettys [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F1F2B76.4040101@freedesktop.org \
--to=jg@freedesktop.org \
--cc=cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=richard.e.brown@dartware.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox