Gentoo Archives: gentoo-performance

From: Kevin Faulkner <kevlar.kernel@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-performance@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-performance] TCP perfomance
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:35:46
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-performance] TCP perfomance by Miguel Sousa Filipe
Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Faulkner <kevlar.kernel@×××××.com> wrote: >> Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote: >>> There is no such thing has a TCP timestamp: >>> >>> >>> so, that doesn't make any sense... >> Your right and I'm wrong. >> Its not in the header, its thrown on at the end.... > > the end of the tcp header, it's a tcp option. (I didn't > understood that the first time I read this email). > It might be good to disable all tcp optional headers.. > Also there might be important to look at issues such has: > - mtu size > - tcp window > - set the don't fragment flag (this can offload the routers and > optimize the mtu for the whole connection path) > - use the BIC algorithm (from what I've read, that's my default choice > nowadays... but for some specific workload there might be better > algorithms)
I haven't played around with different congestion algorithms all that much, I generally have stuck with Westwood. MTU size... with all the different machines we have, I prefer to stay with the default. Window size is a good point.
>> try doing >> cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps >> >> >> > > kind regards! >
sorry if I seemed rude. heh, text can come across like that sometimes. -- gentoo-performance@l.g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-performance] TCP perfomance Ramon van Alteren <ramon@××××××××××.nl>