Re: TCP perfomance

Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Faulkner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote:
>>> There is no such thing has a TCP timestamp:
>>> http://freebie.fatpipe.org/~mjb/Drawings/TCP_Header.png
>>>
>>> so, that doesn't make any sense...
>> Your right and I'm wrong.
>> Its not in the header, its thrown on at the end....
> 
> ...at the end of the tcp header, it's a tcp option. (I didn't
> understood that the first time I read this email).
> It might be good to disable all tcp optional headers..
> Also there might be important to look at issues such has:
> - mtu size
> - tcp window
> - set the don't fragment flag (this can offload the routers and
> optimize the mtu for the whole connection path)
> - use the BIC algorithm (from what I've read, that's my default choice
> nowadays... but for some specific workload there might be better
> algorithms)

I haven't played around with different congestion algorithms all that 
much, I generally have stuck with Westwood. MTU size... with all the 
different machines we have, I prefer to stay with the default. Window 
size is a good point.

>> try doing
>> cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps
>>
>> http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/protocol/tcp/option008.htm
>> http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/5NP0C153PI.html
> 
> kind regards!
> 
sorry if I seemed rude. heh, text can come across like that sometimes.
-- 
[email protected] mailing list