Re: [tcpm] TCP tuning

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Wed, 03 February 2010 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@ISI.EDU>
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 C6CC63A6817 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:31:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 okKEQzyLgfB2 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C086A3A65A6 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [70.213.251.114] (114.sub-70-213-251.myvzw.com [70.213.251.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o13MV3uk015155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:31:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B69F927.5020804@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:31:03 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Murali Bashyam <MBashyam@OcarinaNetworks.com>
References: <7BE9742D-6EDC-43FE-84FC-D22C52D23152@nokia.com> <133D9897FB9C5E4E9DF2779DC91E947C025F1861@SLFSNX.rcs.alcatel-research.de> <d1c2719f1002031110v3b76ca9eu14c9a110847548e7@mail.gmail.com> <4B69CDD7.6060802@isi.edu> <d1c2719f1002031339u14709270k6452c05f0dd3c39e@mail.gmail.com> <EC7B72027914A242B991C029F5F213CF3EBE4C5753@exchsvr01.ocarina.local>
In-Reply-To: <EC7B72027914A242B991C029F5F213CF3EBE4C5753@exchsvr01.ocarina.local>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigF5DC139BA70BF8D38AFE872F"
X-MailScanner-ID: o13MV3uk015155
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "SCHARF, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 22:31:06 -0000


Murali Bashyam wrote:
> Any idle period higher than the RTT between HTTP requests tends to
> reset the cwindow down to the restart window.

This was first documented in an extension to Jacobson's 1988 Sigcomm
paper, in an appendix. The idea is that if you are idle, you shut the
window down. However, a footnote in that doc (unpublished, FWIW)
suggests that because TCP is used mostly symmetrically, one can use the
"time since last receive" instead of "time since last send". As a
result, the request tends to reset the timers, and the server just
blasts at line rate.

This issue is documented in detail in:

John Heidemann, Katia Obraczka, and Joe Touch, "Modeling the Performance
of HTTP Over Several Transport Protocols", IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking, V5, N5, Oct. 1997, pp.616-630.

A correction to TCP's behavior was suggested on this list, and we worked
on it with Sally Floyd for a while ("slow start restart" was the phrase
we used). A number of variations were considered, including 'burst or
lose', 'use it or lose it', etc. We put that on the shelf a while ago,
though we've been interested in 'restarting' it too ;-)

Joe