Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 05 Mar 2002 13:17:42 -0800 | From | Maksim Krasnyanskiy <> | Subject | Re: PPP feature request (Tx queue len + close) |
| |
> > effectively makes your window equal to 1 segment. In any case small PPP > > queue won't make any good for you. > > Nope. Remember that I have buffers below PPP. The transmit >path within PPP and IrNET is minimal (no framing), so buffers in PPP >and below PPP are logically equivalent. True. PPP is a sort of "pass through" thing in your case.
> > I was under assumption that you know for sure that buffering is bad for > you :) > > We are running circles. I want to reduce the amount of buffers >below TCP. This includes PPP buffers and buffers below PPP (both are >logically equivalent). > Both of you are saying "increase buffers at PPP level and >reduce below TCP", but this doesn't make sense, and that's what I was >pointing out. You have to think on the whole stack, not each >individual component. Yes. I see your point. It doesn't really make any difference which layer buffers stuff (unless that layer introduces delays). So I guess in your case you can just set txqueuelen to 1 if you're sure that underlying layer has long enough queues.
> > All this depends on what you want to achieve. If you're looking for max TCP > > performance. I'd recommend to use tcptrace and see what actually is > going on. > > May be your RTT is to high and you need bigger windows or may be there is > > something else. > > I get 3.2 Mb/s TCP throughput over a 4Mb/s IrDA link layer, so >I'm not concernet with max performance. My question is more "how much >buffers can I trim without impacting performance". The goal is to >improve latency and decrease ressource consumption. I see. Did you try ifconfig txqueuelen 1 ?
Max
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |