Re: [gentoo-user] TCP Advanced Congestion Control -- any difference?

[Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1253 bytes --]

On Oct 23, 2011 7:07 PM, "Florian Philipp" <lists@binarywings.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>

Thanks! I'll sure to study them tomorrow. Productive time at the office ;-)

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1746 bytes --]