Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote:
There is no such thing has a TCP timestamp:
http://freebie.fatpipe.org/~mjb/Drawings/TCP_Header.png
so, that doesn't make any sense...
Your right and I'm wrong.
Its not in the header, its thrown on at the end....
...at the end of the tcp header, it's a tcp option. (I didn't
understood that the first time I read this email).
It might be good to disable all tcp optional headers..
Also there might be important to look at issues such has:
- mtu size
- tcp window
- set the don't fragment flag (this can offload the routers and
optimize the mtu for the whole connection path)
- use the BIC algorithm (from what I've read, that's my default choice
nowadays... but for some specific workload there might be better
algorithms)
I haven't played around with different congestion algorithms all that
much, I generally have stuck with Westwood. MTU size... with all the
different machines we have, I prefer to stay with the default. Window
size is a good point.
try doing
cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps
http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/tcp/option008.htm
http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5NP0C153PI.html
kind regards!
sorry if I seemed rude. heh, text can come across like that sometimes.
--
[email protected] mailing list
