Rick Jones wrote:
Kevin Obermanober...@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
Terje Mathisen terje.mathisen at tmsw.no writes:
The end points needs at least bandwidth*latency buffers simply to keep
the flow going, while routers in between should have very little buffer
space, simply because that will allow the end points to discover the
real channel capacity much
On 2/16/2011 7:01 AM, David Malone wrote:
Terje Mathisen terje.mathisen at tmsw.no writes:
The end points needs at least bandwidth*latency buffers simply to keep
the flow going, while routers in between should have very little buffer
space, simply because that will allow the end points to
Danny Mayer ma...@ntp.org writes:
For traditional TCP (single flow), you need bandwidth*latency as
sockbuf at both ends plus the same at the bottleneck router. Some
of the new TCP congestion control systems can do with less, and
still fill the link if they are the only flow.
Since NTP only
dwmal...@maths.tcd.ie (David Malone) writes:
Terje Mathisen terje.mathisen at tmsw.no writes:
The end points needs at least bandwidth*latency buffers simply to keep
the flow going, while routers in between should have very little buffer
space, simply because that will allow the end points to
Terje Mathisen terje.mathisen at tmsw.no writes:
Rick Jones wrote:
Kevin Obermanober...@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
Dave T??ht d...@taht.net wrote:
You might claim that a little intermediate buffer space is a good
thing, in that it can allow a short-term burst of packets to get
through without having to discard other useful stuff, but only as long
as most links have spare capacity most of the time.
A
Dave Täht wrote:
Terje Mathisenterje.mathisen at tmsw.no writes:
There's a huge difference between the window sizes at the ends of a
link and those employed at the various nodes in between:
The end points needs at least bandwidth*latency buffers simply to keep
the flow going, while routers in
Rob wrote:
It is unfortunate that this incompetence now apparently affects the
operation of the internet for everyone (although I have not recognized
any adverse effects in daily use myself).
On the network I manage myself, I always set a reasonable TCP window
instead of the OS vendor default.
David Malone wrote:
Danny Mayerma...@ntp.org writes:
For traditional TCP (single flow), you need bandwidth*latency as
sockbuf at both ends plus the same at the bottleneck router. Some
of the new TCP congestion control systems can do with less, and
still fill the link if they are the only
Terje Mathisen terje.mathisen at tmsw.no wrote:
On my home NTP/GPS server, the symmetric 30 Mbit/s fiber is sufficient
that I never notice the NTP traffic. :-)
Clearly more of us need to try to get time from your home server :)
rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote in message
news:20110202133307.GM2248@localhost...
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 07:11:07PM -, Q wrote:
My local PPS source is set for 'minpoll 4' (16 sec) this has had the
knock
on effect that the other network based servers have all decided to poll
David J Taylor david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote in message
news:igu5i1$hn9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
unruh un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca wrote in message
news:slrnij3r1n.a4g.un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca...
[]
Your referent is somewhat unclear.
If you are saying that
Dave Täht d...@taht.net wrote:
Terje Mathisen terje.mathisen at tmsw.no writes:
Rick Jones wrote:
Kevin Obermanober...@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
Rob wrote:
So basically what we see is equipment designed by
incompetent designers, who probably have no experience
with historic networks.
Really?
Which products do you perceive, don't appear to have the
necessary capabilities to deal with the bufferbloat issue?
As far as I can tell
Rick Jones rick.jon...@hp.com writes:
Dave Täht d...@taht.net wrote:
Terje Mathisen terje.mathisen at tmsw.no writes:
Rick Jones wrote:
Kevin Obermanober...@es.net wrote:
No, you probably won't. Both theoretical and empirical information
shows that overly large windows are not a
Danny Mayer wrote:
It would be more useful to discuss what happens with UDP flows since
that is what NTP uses.
UDP tends to rely on TCP dominating the traffic, so that there is
something that does respond to congestion control mechanisms. TCP tends
to be sacrificed in favour of UDP.
I have to admit I know nothing abut Linux serial PPS. My guess is I
need to somehow set this up before I try to get it to work with NTP.
My clockstats file is filled with the the messages quoted below. Is
there something I can read. I've build ntpd with the required pps
support, have the
18 matches
Mail list logo
