* Re: [gentoo-user] TCP Advanced Congestion Control -- any difference?
@ 2011-10-23 12:04 99% ` Florian Philipp
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Florian Philipp @ 2011-10-23 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]
Am 20.10.2011 18:11, schrieb Florian Philipp:
> Am 20.10.2011 15:10, schrieb Pandu Poluan:
>> Like the subject said: I am wondering if using a non-default TCP
>> Advanced Congestion Control makes any difference.
>>
>> (The default is "cubic", but there are alternatives such as "htcp",
>> "hybla", and "yeah")
>>
>> Any experiences?
>>
>
> I tested it on the only situation I had where it was even remotely worth
> the effort to try it: NFS over TCP via an old and overutilized router:
> No measurable effect. I guess a web or mail server (read: something that
> is not primarily bandwidth constrained and where latency matters) might
> benefit more. But then again, how do you measure that reliably?
>
> You also have to consider where the client might be. A long distance,
> high bandwidth connection will benefit from different congestion control
> mechanisms than a local low bandwidth connection.
>
> Regards,
> Florian Philipp
>
This paper and its references could be interesting.
http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/37486.pdf
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2011-10-20 13:10 [gentoo-user] TCP Advanced Congestion Control -- any difference? Pandu Poluan
2011-10-20 16:11 ` Florian Philipp
2011-10-23 12:04 99% ` Florian Philipp
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox