9 months ago, I asked: On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 02:10:45PM -0500, Dan McDonald wrote: > shell(~)[0]% ndd -get /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat > 49152 > shell(~)[0]% ndd -get /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat > 49152 > shell(~)[0]% > > Why are our TCP window sizes by default so small? Many transactions are > performed these days over either long-distances, with latency-inducing > encryption from IPsec or some VPN middlebox/middleware, or worse, with one or > more layers of latency-inducing middleboxes like NATs in between.
Given recent discussion on another list about performance of a network-centric service, I have to wonder how much of those problems are related to wicked-small window sizes. I do realize that the long-term Right Answer (TM) is some sort of auto-tuning mechnanism, but in the short term, it shouldn't be rocket science to put back larger default values into the ON gate. Am I on crack? Or is this sensible. One other OS seems to have theirs default to 512k. I'd personally prefere 1MB, but can be swayed. Thanks, Dan _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
