Re: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-22 Thread Kieran Mansley
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 17:04 +0200, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote: But is that really what we want (an bug free)? If so, we would really need a compile-time check that TCP_WND is at least 2*TCP_MSS (or only greater than TCP_MSS?) to prevent problems: I think a compile time check would be a good

Re: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-22 Thread Simon Goldschmidt
Kieran Mansley wrote: On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 17:04 +0200, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote: But is that really what we want (an bug free)? If so, we would really need a compile-time check that TCP_WND is at least 2*TCP_MSS (or only greater than TCP_MSS?) to prevent problems: I think a compile

Re: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-22 Thread Kieran Mansley
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 12:33 +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: Kieran Mansley wrote: On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 17:04 +0200, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote: But is that really what we want (an bug free)? If so, we would really need a compile-time check that TCP_WND is at least 2*TCP_MSS (or only

RE: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-22 Thread Kieran Mansley
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 09:38 -0400, Pettinato, Jim wrote: Is anyone else having feelings of déjà vu with this thread?? James M. Pettinato, Jr. FMC Technologies Measurement Solutions Inc. http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/lwip-devel/2008-04/msg00034.html Almost - I think we're now

Re: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-21 Thread goldsi...@gmx.de
Kieran Mansley wrote: Yep, this is the case: the silly window avoidance means we update the advertised window only when it increases by at least one MSS. But is that really what we want (an bug free)? If so, we would really need a compile-time check that TCP_WND is at least 2*TCP_MSS (or

Re: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-20 Thread Simon Goldschmidt
WND = 512 MSS = 512 Having WND == MSS is generally not a good idea regarding throughput because that raises problems both with the nagle and delayed ack algorithm. You should at least make sure the nagle algorithm is turned off when having WND == MSS, although you can then still have

RE: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-20 Thread David Shmelzer
...@whi.se +46 8 449 05 30 +46 705 36 77 22 -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: lwip-users-bounces+j.wester=whi...@nongnu.org [mailto:lwip-users-bounces+j.wester=whi...@nongnu.org] För Simon Goldschmidt Skickat: den 20 oktober 2009 10:53 Till: Mailing list for lwIP users Ämne: Re: [lwip-users

Re: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-20 Thread Alain Mouette
-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: lwip-users-bounces+j.wester=whi...@nongnu.org [mailto:lwip-users-bounces+j.wester=whi...@nongnu.org] För Simon Goldschmidt Skickat: den 20 oktober 2009 10:53 Till: Mailing list for lwIP users Ämne: Re: [lwip-users] TCP problem WND = 512 MSS = 512 Having WND == MSS

RE: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-20 Thread Bill Auerbach
Is it worth adding a check like other checks that are in lwip_init? Bill Alain Mouette wrote: May I suggest that a comment about this be added in the config file. A special page on the wiki about configuring the many buffers in LWIP would be awsome too... This is a very obscure area in lwip

RE: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-20 Thread Simon Goldschmidt
Is it worth adding a check like other checks that are in lwip_init? Up to 1.3.0, it seems to have been working with WND == MSS. And although this is not a good idea regarding performance, there are applications where it makes sense, e.g. if your system is too slow to receive two segments in a

Re: [lwip-users] TCP problem

2009-10-14 Thread Kieran Mansley
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 16:21 +0200, Jan Wester wrote: Hi I’m using lwip 1.3.0 and updated to 1.3.1 and found problem with window size I receive small blocks of data (30 bytes) every 500 ms and on each I call tcp_recved() On version 1.3.0 the window size on tcp ack is 512 (what is my