On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > 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 _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
