Dave Täht d...@taht.net wrote:
Bufferbloat is different that the TCP receive or transmit window
size. Bufferbloat is unmanaged buffers in the software TXQUEUE, the
hardware TX ring, and the device itself.
The TCP layer of buffering is not what we are talking about with
bufferbloat. TCP's
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 08:44:46AM +, Rob wrote:
When the users would set their TCP window to a reasonable value, the
bufferbloat problem would not exist!
When the TCP window is correct for the delay*bandwidth product of a
TCP session, there are no packets piling up in buffers halfway, as
Rob nom...@example.com writes:
Dave Täht d...@taht.net wrote:
Bufferbloat is different that the TCP receive or transmit window
size. Bufferbloat is unmanaged buffers in the software TXQUEUE, the
hardware TX ring, and the device itself.
The TCP layer of buffering is not what we are talking
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:01:56 +0100
From: Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com
Sender: questions-bounces+oberman=es@lists.ntp.org
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 08:44:46AM +, Rob wrote:
When the users would set their TCP window to a reasonable value, the
bufferbloat problem would not
Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
No, you probably won't. Both theoretical and empirical information
shows that overly large windows are not a good thing. This is the
reason all modern network stacks have implemented dynamic window
sizing.
As far as I know, Linux, MacOS (I think),
