From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RHxJy-0000LJ-3S for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:38:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8286421C12C; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:38:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F6C21C0C8 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:37:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.214.53]) by svr-us4.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RHxIu-002RNk-Sa for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:37:29 +0700 Received: by bke11 with SMTP id 11so8594436bke.40 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 05:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.63.130 with SMTP id b2mr38297713fai.35.1319373442596; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 05:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.79.10 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 05:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.79.10 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 05:37:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4EA402BF.7030305@binarywings.net> References: <4EA04816.30200@binarywings.net> <4EA402BF.7030305@binarywings.net> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:37:22 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] TCP Advanced Congestion Control -- any difference? From: Pandu Poluan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015173fe8d85f3f2004aff69113 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr-us4.tirtonadi.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 1c647c2b8e7b5941042991db7a8eb4cc --0015173fe8d85f3f2004aff69113 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Oct 23, 2011 7:07 PM, "Florian Philipp" 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, --0015173fe8d85f3f2004aff69113 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8


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,

--0015173fe8d85f3f2004aff69113--