IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] draft-minshall-nagle

Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com> Tue, 03 June 2014 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ncardwell@google.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D5D1A02F9 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0fain8f15EYP for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com (mail-wi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE5DB1A02F4 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id cc10so6744110wib.5 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 08:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SCvgyP0ja8axBzqwZG3XiECBx/HazT+yatqa/PT27Fs=; b=HkUU6bgAE9iPQVaqgldSfJ9GVBpbHunEAzecsYr4EHNvNFiIqafCgZITdgu0KFkPYe s7nUZKxnRH+Df9wIzhnn5Edjg7nlvw0YakrioXhbTML1ReXzvPSHR+qLdwMYSWwZrnqM bUTAYB9yiltNvSwjYi/lX6bblTjmp9bid9ftwgJI49n2ifMAMkrXy1JJYEt9K9hTXb0n /RzDc/GFvC/xdeQI4oGHd4YMmYsPMSeugS+HeuqO99776YRDjoX1CA+53dgdAdDNJ+v0 ZWOgJgxv6/SuqK2l0WXIFDpEWHOKkEvzOIr+nIylTkH+GaMn/MHDiU7MpJZRqqN4roMg V94Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SCvgyP0ja8axBzqwZG3XiECBx/HazT+yatqa/PT27Fs=; b=SP/JS8o5Je6V4rthdgHoUOZl2nTi1xAfmycsi5ym//Mkl5HG5SSWmmmilU7cDc3OeF 2vB2a2et3NOFnGOIZwjFe+Be90Uvl/1lgWQf0pkhHMfazgL0/EENU4WXD28DwrxDmiy2 SV7RbQMKzltirZDS9+NFZJ7RKPDj+efZl/9gq3hlA6cL9vhTDLH2fjBqevnAxWktRFNO /rV4A9OUR1ZouoKtMaiacYvIayDo2XyzpFfJaJIsGg8Ct13UKG7rpKykEBzcV9WnJyKG EBv8LLsVJFVGCUjP9uHeAhRgpMHXuEN9vrCljg5TDpE//oubyQOB7tI9lTEeE6QbOKJL /stw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlsH/IEb2gX58dEbaBLAbGWhtgl4kJMQAjohvTCN7iZM4vWxB+i0GOsMo3bLfSHwRFrDSAi
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.19.201 with SMTP id h9mr33914928wie.17.1401808521387; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 08:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.36.166 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 08:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <538DE3EA.2030104@isi.edu>
References: <538D2BCC.8030906@mti-systems.com> <538DE3EA.2030104@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:15:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CADVnQy=Jmi10aFiSr1vnziY5bDNBv_W4+qhSkwMEiS4hSsRTkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/UTJJk65vkZTfWRRA8Lyqf7p281A
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-minshall-nagle
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:15:31 -0000

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> Hi, Wes,
>
> Although I don't recall this and only scanned it briefly, I don't quite
> understand the problem.
>
> I thought it was widely known that Nagle was useful for single-character
> interactive traffic, but also widely known as something that should be
> disabled for any multi-character interactive traffic - including
> multi-character encodings, HTTP, etc.
>
> If Nagle is off - as it should be for interactive web traffic - then the
> optimizations in this draft won't have any impact.
>
> So what kind of traffic does this actually help? Or is this an optimization
> of a path that either isn't or shouldn't be used?


The Minshall algorithm is a nice win for some workloads other than web traffic:

  Application performance pitfalls and TCP's Nagle algorithm
  http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=346012

neal

>
> Joe
>
> On 6/2/2014 6:58 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>>
>> I was working on an issue with Nagle in a space system, and
>> noticed that the Linux kernel actually implements the "Minshall"
>> version of the Nagle algorithm, described nicely in:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-minshall-nagle-01
>>
>> There are a couple later papers I was able to find also that
>> describe this.
>>
>> To me, this looks like clearly a good thing that should be
>> recommended in the RFCs where we currently just have discussion
>> of "standard Nagle".  Apparently it was adopted in Linux, but I
>> wonder if it was picked up or not in other OSes as well.
>>
>> Does anyone have history on why this draft never progressed?
>> Maybe someone has current contact information for Greg Minshall?
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email