X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,RDNS_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
X-Spam-Score:	-2.9
Message-ID:	<4F0B178D.8050000@sh.cvut.cz>
Date:	Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:36:29 +0100
From:	=?UTF-8?B?VsOhY2xhdiBaZW1hbg==?= <v DOT haisman AT sh DOT cvut DOT cz>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)
References:	<95814509-4E08-44C6-8E59-026225EC0FF5 AT playsafesa DOT com> <4F04613B DOT 6050505 AT gmail DOT com> <B6F87B4D-C088-49BF-B52C-3D0168EAC78D AT playsafesa DOT com> <20120109134311 DOT GH15470 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20120109134311.GH15470@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 01/09/2012 02:43 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Johan,
> 
> please don't http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU.  Thanks.
> 
> On Jan  4 21:25, Johan van den Berg wrote:
>> I am very happy to report that increasing the send and receive
>> buffers has done the job (at least, on a 10MBit link but will be
>> testing a 100Mbit in a few days). I calculated the ideal size as
>> per 
>> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-hisock/index.html
>
>> 
> it's nice to know that you could increase the performance by
> increasing the buffer sizes.  However, I'm reluctant to implement
> this as a generic option.  As far as I know the socket buffers are
> taken from nonpaged pool, so generically using 2 Meg buffers will
> take a lot of precious resources.
> 
> I made a test in a local LAN between Linux and a W7 64 bit machine,
> and I didn't see a lot of difference between 64K, 2 Megs, or
> letting the OS decide.  So I'm wondering if it's not the best
> option to let the OS decide starting with Vista and later.
Testing it on LAN will not show much. The buffer/TCP window size is
important for high latency * bandwidth product connections.

> 
> How's the performance in your scenario when applying the below
> patch instead of yours?

- -- 
VZ
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk8LF40ACgkQbJlIwZz1Ood/rwEAojdJKMJFtpmjKfOelJxa0p5L
s8aSKELVKao7/IN0WAIA/0Z7osFYBOw4plvQ7ToDLHgquhbKBdI+9FfDSIta7PIP
=wpBf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -