My somewhat biased capsule summary is:
Algorithms:
Reno: Linux never really implemented pure Reno anyway, see
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/research/iwtcp/papers/linuxtcp.pdf
This makes anybody doing pure ns2 based comparisons suspect.
The problem is Reno rolls off
HSTCP: too aggressiv
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 21:56]:
> From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:56:13 +0200
>
> > Do you still think that making Cubic the default is a good idea?
>
> Can you propose a better alternative other than Reno?
The only other option would be HS-TC
From: "SANGTAE HA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:49:47 -0500
> I don't care what algorithm is default in kernel, however, it is not
> appropriate to get back to Reno. As Windows decided to go with
> "Compound TCP", why we want to back to 80's algorithm?
I want to re-emphasize this
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:56:13 +0200
> Do you still think that making Cubic the default is a good idea?
Can you propose a better alternative other than Reno?
You've cited only "unknown unknowns" and that's not something tangible
we can work with.
-
To unsub
This isn't really a reply to anyone in particular, but I wanted to touch
on a few points.
Reno. As Windows decided to go with "Compound TCP", why we want to
back to 80's algorithm?
It's worth noting that Microsoft is not using Compound TCP by default,
except in Beta versions so they can get
* Injong Rhee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 19:43]:
>
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 4:56 AM, Baruch Even wrote:
>
> >
> >According to claims of Doug Leith the cubic algorithm that is in the
> >kernel is different from what was proposed and tested. That's an
> >important issue which is deflected by personal
On Feb 13, 2007, at 4:56 AM, Baruch Even wrote:
According to claims of Doug Leith the cubic algorithm that is in the
kernel is different from what was proposed and tested. That's an
important issue which is deflected by personal attacks.
It is not the algorithm "untested" -- it is the implem
* SANGTAE HA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 18:50]:
> Hi Baruch,
>
> I would like to add some comments on your argument.
>
> On 2/13/07, Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 00:53]:
> >> From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007
Hi Baruch,
I would like to add some comments on your argument.
On 2/13/07, Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 00:53]:
> From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:12:41 +0200
>
> > The problem is that you actually put a mostl
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070213 00:53]:
> From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:12:41 +0200
>
> > The problem is that you actually put a mostly untested algorithm as the
> > default for everyone to use. The BIC example is important, it was the
> > default alg
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:12:41 +0200
> The problem is that you actually put a mostly untested algorithm as the
> default for everyone to use. The BIC example is important, it was the
> default algorithm for a long while and had implementation bugs that no
> o
* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070212 22:21]:
> From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:11:01 +0200
>
> > Since no one really agrees on the relative merits and problems of the
> > different algorithms and since the users themselves dont know, dont care
> > and have n
On 2/13/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is not the internet of 15 years ago, please wake up everyone.
We cannot sit on eggs for 5 years to make sure they hatch perfectly
like was previously possible.
OK. I get the point. I am more conservative by nature and more of an academic.
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:37:13 -0800
> My patches weren't reactionary. Going to pure old Reno is reactionary.
> It was more looking at the state of the code on the flight back
> and cleaning house. Others were/are reactionary.
Ok.
The only patch I ha
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:32:40 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Ian McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:13:52 +1300
>
> > Unless of course the papers you saw at PFLDNET showed that Cubic was a
> > really good choice and you want to point us to those
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:26:34 -0800
> No magic paper. But the impression from multiple talks is that Cubic
> is still doing fine. Also for non high speed flows, it really doesn't matter
> because all the loss based congestion controls behave the same.
From: "Ian McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:13:52 +1300
> Unless of course the papers you saw at PFLDNET showed that Cubic was a
> really good choice and you want to point us to those papers.
I heavily dislike all of these "reactionary" patches from Stephen
after he attende
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:13:52 +1300
"Ian McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/13/07, Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070212 18:04]:
> > > The TCP Vegas implementation is buggy, and BIC is too agressive
> > > so they should not be in the def
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:11:01 +0200
> Since no one really agrees on the relative merits and problems of the
> different algorithms and since the users themselves dont know, dont care
> and have no clue on what should be the correct behaviour to report bugs
>
On 2/13/07, Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070212 18:04]:
> The TCP Vegas implementation is buggy, and BIC is too agressive
> so they should not be in the default list. Westwood is okay, but
> not well tested.
Since no one really agrees on the rel
* Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070212 18:04]:
> The TCP Vegas implementation is buggy, and BIC is too agressive
> so they should not be in the default list. Westwood is okay, but
> not well tested.
Since no one really agrees on the relative merits and problems of the
different algorithms
The TCP Vegas implementation is buggy, and BIC is too agressive
so they should not be in the default list. Westwood is okay, but
not well tested.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
net/ipv4/Kconfig | 10 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
--- tcp.o
22 matches
Mail list logo
