Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning
"Biswas, Anumita" <Anumita.Biswas@netapp.com> Wed, 03 February 2010 19:00 UTC
Return-Path: <Anumita.Biswas@netapp.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 0FE1528C1F5 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:00:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 bswTAgu2vFzD for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACAF28C1FA for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:39:22 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,399,1262592000"; d="scan'208";a="310634435"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2010 10:39:38 -0800
Received: from sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com (sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.99.115.28]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id o13IdO7u004047; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([10.99.115.18]) by sacrsexc2-prd.hq.netapp.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:39:26 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:39:14 -0800
Message-ID: <A3D02FB7C6883741952C425A59E261A509732117@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <d1c2719f1002031020u114d0f27r5b1685eef4f2177b@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] TCP tuning
Thread-Index: Acqk/alwBu5qsAVXSfWwjdzrXrNC6QAAZMoQ
From: "Biswas, Anumita" <Anumita.Biswas@netapp.com>
To: Jerry Chu <hkchu@google.com>, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2010 18:39:26.0032 (UTC) FILETIME=[3622E500:01CAA500]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:44:23 -0800
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning
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, 03 Feb 2010 19:00:45 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Chu [mailto:hkchu@google.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:21 AM > To: Michael Welzl > Cc: tcpm@ietf.org WG > Subject: Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning > > > Michael, > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Michael Welzl > <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > (sorry if this is a bit off topic, as the mentioned presentation is > > mainly about using a larger initial window) > > > > In the context of the discussion that Jerry brought up on parameter > > tuning, one question that was raised was the initial RTO during the > > SYN - SYN/ACK exchange. I understand that we can't > recommend to resend > > SYN's more aggressively because this might cause a server to be > > overloaded with SYN's, but why do we have to wait extremely > long until > > we resend SYN/ACKs? > > > > Back then, when I asked, I got no answer. Both Jerry and I > pointed to > > our measurement results which show that the effect is nonneglible. > > Actually Mark Allman, Vern Paxon and I have been working on > revising RFC2988 to reduce the initial RTO from 3secs to > 1sec. Will submit the proposal soon! > This implies that this proposal brings the intial RTO value to be equal to the minimum RTO value of 1 second. Is this true? I am going by RFC 2988, section 2, 2.4. It explicitly states this: " (2.4) Whenever RTO is computed, if it is less than 1 second then the RTO SHOULD be rounded up to 1 second. Traditionally, TCP implementations use coarse grain clocks to measure the RTT and trigger the RTO, which imposes a large minimum value on the RTO. Research suggests that a large minimum RTO is needed to keep TCP conservative and avoid spurious retransmissions [AP99]. Therefore, this specification requires a large minimum RTO as a conservative approach, while at the same time acknowledging that at some future point, research may show that a smaller minimum RTO is acceptable or superior." Is it time to reconsider a smaller minimum RTO as well? > Best, > > Jerry > > > > > So I'll use this chance to ask again :-) > > > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Lars Eggert wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Jerry Chu has recently started the discussion on whether > we need to > >> think about tweaking TCP for the "modern Internet." Just > came across > >> another presentation from (AFAICT) another corner of Google that > >> makes similar arguments. > >> > >> FYI: > >> > http://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/spdy/An_Argument_For_Chang > >> ing_TCP_Slow_Start.pdf > >> > >> This topic seems to be gaining momentum, and the WG should > take some > >> time considering if there is work here for it. > >> > >> Lars_______________________________________________ > >> tcpm mailing list > >> tcpm@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > > > > _______________________________________________ > > tcpm mailing list > > tcpm@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > > > _______________________________________________ > tcpm mailing list > tcpm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm >
- [tcpm] TCP tuning Lars Eggert
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning SCHARF, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Stefanos Harhalakis
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Adam Langley
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Biswas, Anumita
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Biswas, Anumita
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Murali Bashyam
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Michael Welzl
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning John Heffner
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Marco Mellia
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning rick jones
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mike Belshe
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning rick jones
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning rick jones
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Alexander Zimmermann
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning SCHARF, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning SCHARF, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Andrew Yourtchenko
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning rick jones
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Kacheong Poon
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning SCHARF, Michael
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning rick jones
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Jerry Chu
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mike Belshe
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Mark Allman
- Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning Joe Touch