Hi,
OK, I tried this (on both ends!), but no joy unfortunately ... :-( It almost seemed like overall data throughput was lower, but the throughput results bounce around so much that it's hard to really conclude this or not. I'm not sure if attachments make it through to this mailing list or not, but let me try to attach a couple pictures showing this with and without OpenVPN (to try to make this easier to see). Thoughts? Thanks! On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 02:01 AM, Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 05:21:43PM -0600, open...@rkmorris.us wrote: > > I did this in the client configuration file ... is this right? > > I checked the OpenVPN web site, and it may be that I need this on > > the server side instead. Please clarify and I'll try it again (if > > I need to). > > "socket-flags TCP_NODELAY" > > that would need to go into both(!) config files - it changes the way the > operating system handles write() calls into a socket, that is, whether > the OS waits for "more data" to eventually generate a full sized packet, > or whether it will send the data immediately (generating a small packet). > > (This is a fundamental problem with TCP - the stacks are optimized for > certain patterns, either "bulk data, make full size packets" or > "interactive traffic, send single bytes of keystrokes, where a few ms > delay don't hurt", but not for VPN-like traffic) > > gert > > -- > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! > //http://www.muc.de/~gert/ > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de > fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de >
Direct-NoOpenVPN.png
Description: Binary data
WithOpenVPN.png
Description: Binary data
