Re: silly windows

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, William J. Mills wrote:
> > It may be avoiding some of the REALLY silly windows like 100 byte 
> > fragments of a 4K frame.  But at apparent_out_window/4, it can break a 4K 
> > frame up into 4 framelets, and frequently breaks one up into 2 or 3.
> 
> So what is the right behavior?  That's the question, should we wait for
> the window to open completely so we are sending the max we can in one 
> chunk?  This works if the window is in fact larger than the frame,
> but what if the fram is larger than the window, we have to fragment.

apparent_out_window is evidently not updated when one's peer increases its
window size.  That is the problem I am seeing.  For a crude test, I just
eliminated that part of your test, and the silly windows are gone, with no
stalls that I can detect (and I HAD seen stalls for some of my previous
attempts...).  So I think the right behavior is to keep your test as you
proposed it, but find some way to really find out what the peer's current
input buffer size is.


> Possible that apparent_out_window is not getting maintained...

Indeed, it is set to 4K and never changed, as far as I can tell.  I
suppose if there is some way to propagate this change to one's peer.

-------------------------------------------------------
-- David C. Niemi           Adeptech Systems, Inc.   --
-- Reston, Virginia, USA    http://www.adeptech.com/ --
-------------------------------------------------------



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click