On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Ben Aitchison <ben@plain.co.nz> wrote:
quoted text
> In my own tests, when I got apalling speeds like that I discovered that the
> remote connection had timestamps turned off.

not the problem here.

quoted text
> I'm not sure why you're trying to both raise the starting point as well as
> the increment speed.  As the normal cap is at 256k anyway.  So it can't
> increment anywhere.

that was just a left over.

quoted text
> What I've been running with for a while is starting at 48k and raising by
> 32k increments.  Which doesn't appear to be too bad internationally, and
> isn't quite as bad when timestamps aren't available.

yeah I found bumping to 64k made a big difference too, but for my
desktop, i have basically infinite memory, so there's little point
trying to find the right number.  i went to 256k just to measure the
difference.  but this isn't a long term fix.  starting at 16k is ok,
as long as we can get the window bigger.

quoted text
> That said, you realise you can still set the socket buffer size in an
> application - like squid, and relayd both support built in hard coding of
> socket buffer size.

for a server, maybe i'd do so.  but i'm not going around patching all
the client shit on my desktop (rebuild firefox!?) just for this.