On 1/31/23 15:38, Marek Zarychta wrote:
W dniu 31.01.2023 o 19:31, Paul Mather pisze:
While playing with different mod_cc(4) might bring some improvement,
to get a real boost I'd suggest enabling tcp_rack(4) if feasible.
I am interested in trying this out, but believe it is more feasible in
my case for the -STABLE and -CURRENT systems I am using, not so much
for the -RELEASE systems that are kept up to date via binary
freebsd-update updates. My reading of the tcp_rack(4) man page is
that you have to build a custom kernel as, unlike the cc_* congestion
control algorithms, the loadable tcp_rack module is not built by
default. Is that an accurate reading?
Yes, this gift from Netflix is probably better suited for -STABLE and
-CURRENT as easier to set up there. There is an excellent, up-to-date
article about it by Klara Systems writers[1]. From my experience
tcp_rack(4) is well suited for congested, lossy or redundant network
paths where loses, duplicated packets or races between packets occur.
Not a panacea, but very performant TCP stack based on the _fair_
algorithm. In some instances, it might help you to saturate the
bandwidth of the link. TCP algo can be loaded/unloaded/changed on the
fly. In FreeBSD 14-CURRENT you can change it on an active socket with
tcpsso(8) utility, in FreeBSD 12 and 13 you have to restart the app
bound to the socket.
Please feel free to play with TCP stacks and congestion algos with the
help of benchmarks/iperf3 to find out what prevents the link from being
saturated and give us some feedback here.
[1] https://klarasystems.com/articles/using-the-freebsd-rack-tcp-stack/
Cheers
Wow! I'm a long time FreeBSD user (from the days of 1.1.5.1) and
internet user (since 1990), but this thread has made it clear that I
have been remiss on keeping up with developments in the TCP world. Is
there a chance someone might update section IV of the handbook with
some of this material? Also, does anyone on this thread know if these
settings might interact (beneficially or not) with TOR? -- George
