Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-hkchu-tcpm-initcwnd-00.txt

rick jones <perfgeek@mac.com> Wed, 10 March 2010 03:36 UTC

Return-Path: <perfgeek@mac.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5393A6AC9 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:36:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LNO461d232Q3 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:36:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtpout021.mac.com (asmtpout021.mac.com [17.148.16.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4AAE3A67E1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 19:36:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (76-220-56-223.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.220.56.223]) by asmtp021.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0KZ100H3ORBNHE30@asmtp021.mac.com> for tcpm@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:35:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-1003090287
Message-id: <4A655CBC-A0C4-48AF-B1D9-FB991051A08C@mac.com>
From: rick jones <perfgeek@mac.com>
To: Jerry Chu <hkchu@google.com>
In-reply-to: <d1c2719f1003091125r7514cb73le8376f5851e5f5f5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:35:47 -0800
References: <d1c2719f1003021450mf70e338r8818fa4634e0f2e@mail.gmail.com> <d1c2719f1003081635r4299dfd8u174a5e797aae0c2e@mail.gmail.com> <FF762DF3-085C-4EB5-946B-B496842AC839@cs.ucl.ac.uk> <d1c2719f1003091125r7514cb73le8376f5851e5f5f5@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, iccrg@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [tcpm] I-D Action:draft-hkchu-tcpm-initcwnd-00.txt
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:36:16 -0000

On Mar 9, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Jerry Chu wrote:
> I don't know about you, but imagine a simple change that can deliver  
> a 10% improvement
> (in average) over ALL web traffic regardless of the response sizes  
> (some are much less than
> 10 segments), access speed,..., etc. That is A LOT to me!

Indeed, 10% average improvement is impressive.

Is there a way to tease-out what the "typical" cwnd becomes in both  
the base and exp cases?  Say from those services with larger  
responses? Does it become 8*MSS?  12*MSS etc?  That would help show  
how "close to the edge" 10 segments might be yes?

WRT the retransmissions (table 7 in the paper), is it safe to ass-u-me  
that the increase in retransmissions means a corresponding increase in  
"Internet" bandwidth consumed to deliver the given quantity of data?

rick jones
there is no rest for the wicked, yet the virtuous have no pillows
wisdom teeth are impacted, people and things are affected by the  
effects of events :)