Hi Stephen,
We have been working on slow start and we have a nice solution for this. We
will send you a patch and test results.
Thanks
Injong
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Hemminger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Injong Rhee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; &qu
Thu, 10 May 2007 13:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:39:25 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Bill,
> Could you test with the lastest version of CUBIC? this is not the
> latest
> version of it you tested.
Rhee-sangsang-
Bill,
Could you test with the lastest version of CUBIC? this is not the latest
version of it you tested.
Injong
> As a followup, I ran a somewhat interesting test. I increased the
> requested socket buffer size to 100 MB, which is sufficient to
> overstress the capabilities of the netem delay em
ation.
The version that D. Leith has tested is a version that fixes the
earlier bug.
Note that having bugs in the implementation does not warrant attacks on
the algorithm itself.
Some "weakness" of CUBIC.. please read my rebuttal
on that paper in my website: http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/
Not sure why the slow start for cubic is slower than the others.
We will check on this.
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Hemminger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Douglas Leith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sangtae Ha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:02 PM
Subject: TC
http://netsrv.csc.ncsu.edu/convex-ordering/
If you need our report on theoretical results, we can e-mail you the
report.
Injong Rhee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Douglas Leith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Injong Rhee"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:20 PM
Subject:
confirmed inthe FAST journal paper [
http://netlab.caltech.edu/publications/FAST-ToN-final-060209-2007.pdf --
please look at Section IV.B and C. But your results show really bad RTT
fairness.]
Best regards,
Injong
---
Injong Rhee
NCSU
On Sep 22, 2006, at 10:22 AM, Douglas Leith wrote:
For thos
Doug Leith wrote-
> I suggest you take a closer look Injong - there is a whole page of data
> from tests covering a wide range of levels of background traffic. These
> results are all new, and significantly strengthen the conclusions I
> think, as is the expanded explanatory discussion of the
Daniele,
Which version of linux are you testing with? We have test results of
linux high speed TCP options in
http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/rhee/export/bitcp/asteppaper.htm
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:netdev-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniele
Let's get off this e2e list for this discussion. It is really unnecessary
to use this list for
this discussion. I don't understand why you keep sending your email to
this list even
though we are seating next to each other in the same conference. Isn't
this amusing
or abusing of this mailing list?
Sure. Your comments about running the buggy implementation are well taken.
That is
why this type of reporting is helpful and we are committed to keep this
effort. Just that
it takes time to run the tests, and before we run a new set of tests, we
have to do some
batch of patches to reduce our effor
Doug,
Sorry that we are not THAT real time in updating the report :-)
Seriously, we can't run the tests for every fix and bug report. But
we are aware of your new patch posted last week on the e2e list and indeed
applied it to our testing platform for retesting.Now one test case is done
(thanks to
Ditto. I remember we had some discussion on this sometime back in the
netdev mailing list (Baruch was part of the discussion).
> -Original Message-
> From: David S. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:09 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
I wonder the same. I wonder how this new patch by the HTCP folks
improves what we provided for the 2.6.x (which is currently
incorporated in the latest linux version). My recollection says that
this HTCP patch periodically crashes the system very often -- so we
could not run the comparison. BTW, th
15 matches
Mail list logo
