Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 - 4:15 pm

* David Miller | 2010-05-26 15:10:14 [-0700]:


This discussion - as once a month - is about fairness. But if we define a
domain as a tuple of {process,peer-IP} the fairness is applied only for the
last link before "peer-IP".

But fairness applies to *all* links in between! For example: consider a
dumpbell scenario:


+------+                                   +------+ 
|      |                                   |      |  
|  H1  |                                   |  H3  | 
|      |                                   |      |  
+------+                                   +------+  
  10MB  \   +------+            +------+  / 10MB
         \  |      |   1MB/s    |      | / 
          > |  R1  |------------|  R2  |<    
         /  |      |            |      | \      
  10MB  /   +------+            +------+  \ 10MB 
+------+                                   +------+  
|      |                                   |      |        
|  H2  |                                   |  H4  | 
|      |                                   |      | 
+------+                                   +------+


How can a domain defined as {process,peer-IP} fair to the 1MB bottleneck link?
It is not fair! And it is also not fair to open n simultaneous streams and so
on. This problem is discussed in several RFC's.

.02


Best regards, Hagen


-- 
Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>  ||  http://jauu.net/
Telephone: +49 174 5455209           ||  Key Id: 0x98350C22
Key Fingerprint: 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, Tom Herbert, (Tue May 25, 10:01 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, Stephen Hemminger, (Tue May 25, 10:08 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, David Miller, (Tue May 25, 10:52 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, Tom Herbert, (Wed May 26, 12:06 am)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, David Miller, (Wed May 26, 12:33 am)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, Denys Fedorysychenko, (Wed May 26, 10:41 am)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, David Miller, (Wed May 26, 2:08 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, David Miller, (Wed May 26, 3:10 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, Hagen Paul Pfeifer, (Wed May 26, 4:15 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, David Miller, (Wed May 26, 8:04 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, Hagen Paul Pfeifer, (Thu May 27, 12:08 am)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, David Miller, (Thu May 27, 12:28 am)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, Hagen Paul Pfeifer, (Thu May 27, 12:46 am)
Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window, Hagen Paul Pfeifer, (Thu May 27, 12:19 pm)