nanog mailing list archives
Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs
From: Chris Welti <chris.welti () switch ch>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:26:18 +0200
On 20/04/16 16:27, Leo Bicknell wrote:
90%+ of the stacks deployed will be too small. Modern Unix generally has "autotuning" TCP stacks, but I don't think Windows or OS X has those features yet (but I'd be very happy to be wrong on that point). Regardless of satellite uplink/downlink speeds, boxes generally need to be tuned to get maximum performance on satellite.
Windows also has TCP buffers auto-tuning since Windows 7/Vista up to 16MB, however only receiver-side tuning on their client versions, for sender-side tuning you will need a server version. That means uploading stuff from a regular windows "client" machine to a remote host with a large RTT will be very slow. -- Chris
Current thread:
- Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 19)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Jared Mauch (Apr 19)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Eric Kuhnke (Apr 19)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs joel jaeggli (Apr 19)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Eric Kuhnke (Apr 19)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Leo Bicknell (Apr 20)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 20)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Lee (Apr 20)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Tony Finch (Apr 20)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Eygene Ryabinkin (Apr 21)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Chris Welti (Apr 24)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Lee (Apr 20)
- Re: Latency, TCP ACKs and upload needs Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 20)