| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Faulkner <kevlar.kernel@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> There is no such thing has a TCP timestamp: |
| 5 |
>> http://freebie.fatpipe.org/~mjb/Drawings/TCP_Header.png |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> so, that doesn't make any sense... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Your right and I'm wrong. |
| 10 |
> Its not in the header, its thrown on at the end.... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
...at the end of the tcp header, it's a tcp option. (I didn't |
| 13 |
understood that the first time I read this email). |
| 14 |
It might be good to disable all tcp optional headers.. |
| 15 |
Also there might be important to look at issues such has: |
| 16 |
- mtu size |
| 17 |
- tcp window |
| 18 |
- set the don't fragment flag (this can offload the routers and |
| 19 |
optimize the mtu for the whole connection path) |
| 20 |
- use the BIC algorithm (from what I've read, that's my default choice |
| 21 |
nowadays... but for some specific workload there might be better |
| 22 |
algorithms) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> try doing |
| 27 |
> cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/tcp/option008.htm |
| 30 |
> http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5NP0C153PI.html |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
kind regards! |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Miguel Sousa Filipe |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-performance@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives
