On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:07:00PM +1300, Ben Aitchison wrote: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:39:20PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: > > yeah I found bumping to 64k made a big difference too, but for my > > desktop, i have basically infinite memory, so there's little point > > trying to find the right number. i went to 256k just to measure the > > difference. but this isn't a long term fix. starting at 16k is ok, > > as long as we can get the window bigger. > > > > That said, you realise you can still set the socket buffer size in an > > > application - like squid, and relayd both support built in hard coding of > > > socket buffer size. > > > > for a server, maybe i'd do so. but i'm not going around patching all > > the client shit on my desktop (rebuild firefox!?) just for this. > > Hey I just discovered that relayd isn't raising the buffer sizes, whereas > squid is. There may be some issue like not accepting the data quick enough > causing issues? > > If I set a static buffer at 49152, I get the same speeds as my (raised) > default. > > But if I use squid I get something more comparable to the speeds I get when I > raise buffer to 262144. (which isn't 5 times as fast fwiw) > > So I'm assuming that some applications are not increasing the window size for > some reason or other; >
Window size scaling is disabled when an application is issuing a setsockopt() changing SO_SNDBUF or SO_RCVBUF. -- :wq Claudio
