X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4F0BEE4E.2040605@dancol.org>
Date:	Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:52:46 -0800
From:	Daniel Colascione <dancol AT dancol DOT org>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: socket performance
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> <f5bobucggxs DOT fsf AT calexico DOT inf DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
In-Reply-To:	<f5bobucggxs.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
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

--------------enigD9CCF92DD09FA11FC51AEA10
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 1/9/12 11:22 PM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
>=20
>> 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 poo=
l,
>> so generically using 2 Meg buffers will take a lot of precious resources.
>=20
> And contribute to bufferbloat problems [1] [2] elsewhere!

Large socket buffers don't contribute bufferbloat: a socket's
send-buffer holds bytes, not packets. It sits above TCP on the
networking stack, thus doesn't affect TCP's flow control decisions.
Bufferbloat happens when deep IP-packet buffers confuse TCP's
congestion avoidance, not when the OS feeds bytes to TCP more efficiently.

Of course, using a larger socket buffer _can_ increase the
send(2)-to-wire latency, but that's not quite the same thing as
bufferbloat.


--------------enigD9CCF92DD09FA11FC51AEA10
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAk8L7k4ACgkQ17c2LVA10Vt6uwCfa8jMOk3KkjGE9KMxLRxjrBB2
8+wAnR8Jk6HUoizwVBq6iths6ERTFBBb
=ujX5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigD9CCF92DD09FA11FC51AEA10--

- Raw text -