On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:14:11 -0800, Joe Shen wrote:
|-(ADSL)\
customer/ --Edge_router---...---Japan Server
\-(100Methernet)-/
it is probably worth doing an experiment, by placing a target host
just before the edge router, inside your net, and
Thanks.
I've done the experiments. The reason is: the 100Mbps
ethernet is so fast that it could fill the buffer of
bottleneck link very quickly ( Path_mtu, burstness of
traffic). There may also exist ACK compression in
reverse path .
Joe
--- Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri,
Hi,
the network path is:
|-(ADSL)\
customer/ --Edge_router---...---Japan
Server
\-(100Methernet)-/
So, from edge_router to Japan server the path is
identical.
There is something wrong with both scenarios.
A 5 Mbyte file is 40 megabits. With
On 15-okt-04, at 10:14, Joe Shen wrote:
The
measuring is scheduled 20packet per 20seconds, we also
ping each hop address along the path to server. The
result shows there is no packet loss along from
monitoring computer to customer site, but packet loss
increase at a special hop along the path to
Hi Joe,
divide et impera :-)
Put a (FTP-)server in _your_ network to get an idea if the problem is
with the edge device (or somewhere in your network) or on the WAN to
Japan.
The PING may not tell you much about short-term queue problems in a
device. As Mikael Abrahamsson wrote use a sniffer
It's generally a bad idea to turn of ethernet
autonegotiation unless
the equipment at the other side doesn't support it.
Yes, we've checked the configuration, both access
router interface and customer's ethernet interface are
forced to be (100Mbsp, full duplex). And, there is no
CRC
On 15-okt-04, at 12:04, Joe Shen wrote:
Your explanation on TCP behavior seems reasonable, but
why TCP over fast access line express so much packet
loss than slow access line ? Do WindowsXP/Win2k
determine its startup sending window according to
access speed or path MTU ?
I don't think there is
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Joe Shen wrote:
Hi,
the network path is:
|-(ADSL)\
customer/ --Edge_router---...---Japan
Server
\-(100Methernet)-/
So, from edge_router to Japan server the path is
identical.
Yes. But, for ftp TCP control real
--On 15 October 2004 13:33 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, the cause can also be rate limiting. Rate limiting is deadly for
TCP performance so it shouldn't be used on TCP traffic.
Add unless appropriate shaping is performed prior to the rate-limiting
with the
Data Communications
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Alex Bligh
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:25 AM
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Joe Shen
Cc: NANGO; Alex Bligh
Subject: Re: why upload with adsl is faster than 100M ethernet ?
snip
I can't remember
Alex Bligh wrote:
--On 15 October 2004 13:33 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, the cause can also be rate limiting. Rate limiting is deadly
for
TCP performance so it shouldn't be used on TCP traffic.
Add unless appropriate shaping is performed prior to the
On Oct 15, 2004, at 14:24 Uhr, Alex Bligh wrote:
I can't remember what the tool is now, but there used to be a tool
which
worked like ping but sent a udp stream at a given rate per second and
told
you about packet drops,
iperf? (works for both, tcp and udp)
Regards, Marc
--
Marc Binderberger
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, the cause can also be rate limiting. Rate limiting is deadly
for TCP performance so it shouldn't be used on TCP traffic.
Hmm...I'd have to disagree. Are you perhaps assuming a certain threshold
(100mbps, for instance)?
I use rate
--On 15 October 2004 11:46 -0400 Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm...I'd have to disagree. Are you perhaps assuming a certain threshold
(100mbps, for instance)?
I use rate limiting for some of my customers, and when correctly
configured (you _must_ use the right burst sizes), you will get
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
I can support what Iljisch said.
In a former life I ran extensive tests on the effect of CAR on TCP (no
longer have the data to publish, but it's out there), and it's just plain
broken - if your purpose is to simulate a lower amount of bandwidth with
--On 15 October 2004 12:31 -0400 Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the desire is to provide a simulated circuit with x bandwidth, CAR
does a great job, IFF you correctly size the burst: 1.5x/8 for the normal
burst, 3x/8 for the max burst.
The aggregate rate of the transfer is x in all the
]; NANOG [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Alex Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: why upload with adsl is faster than 100M ethernet ?
--On 15 October 2004 12:31 -0400 Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the desire is to provide a simulated circuit with x bandwidth
, October 15, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: why upload with adsl is faster than 100M ethernet ?
--On 15 October 2004 12:31 -0400 Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the desire is to provide a simulated circuit with x bandwidth, CAR
does a great job, IFF you correctly size the burst
Hi,
I met a question with upload speed and network access
speed.
One of our customer lease two lines from us. One is
2Mbps ADSL line the other is 100Mbps fiber ethernet
link. The customer needs to upload files to server in
Japan usually. Now, the customer complaint that the
upload speed of
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Joe Shen wrote:
Hi,
I met a question with upload speed and network access
speed.
One of our customer lease two lines from us. One is
2Mbps ADSL line the other is 100Mbps fiber ethernet
link. The customer needs to upload files to server in
Japan usually. Now, the
20 matches
Mail list logo
