[Bloat] using tcp_notsent_lowat in various apps?

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson
<sgunderson at bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:11:08AM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
>> I just tossed off a quick patch for rsync, not that I have a clue as
>> to whether it would make any difference there.
>
> For bulk applications (like rsync), how would this make sense at all?
> I thought the entire point of this option was if you knew what data to send
> now, but that you might want to change your mind later if it takes some time
> to send it. The latter doesn't apply to rsync.

That was mostly there for a quick coding example (I have also had out
of tree patches
for classification and tcp cc selection in there, and was fiddling
with cdg, so it was seconds
more to toss off that patch. rsync does also mix command and control
in the data flow).
What I'd wanted to do was measure the cpu impact of the
additional context switches along the lines of the original posting on
this option

https://lwn.net/Articles/560082/

(In the case of rsync and scp I have been known to abort it part of
the way through, too.)

The larger question was about anyone trying vnc and similar questions
in chrome and other web
browsers, and servers. ex:

https://insouciant.org/tech/prioritization-only-works-when-theres-pending-data-to-prioritize/

> /* Steinar */
> --
> Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat



-- 
Dave Täht
What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone?
https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast