[clue-tech] TCP/IP and the Bufferbloat Problem

[dennisjperkins at comcast.net]

I agree. I could see how a smaller RTU could cause extra work by forcing received data to be chopped into smaller segments for a smaller RTU size. I don't remember if there is an issue when going from smaller to larger packet size. Otherwise, I'm not sure what negative affect buffers would have. 

I could see movie downloads having a big impact. Or a slug of spam going thru. Or a switch that resets for some reason. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Ockers" <ockers at ockers.net> 
To: "CLUE technical discussion" <clue-tech at cluedenver.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2010 10:51:15 AM 
Subject: Re: [clue-tech] TCP/IP and the Bufferbloat Problem 

Hi, 

Collins Richey wrote: 

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Jed S. Baer <cluemail at jbaer.cotse.net> wrote: 

Fascinating read. Even if I didn't understand a lot of it. https://gettys.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/whose-house-is-of-glasse-must-not-throw-stones-at-another/ Most of us have the general impression "lots of buffers - a good
thing", but obviously this is not always the case.

A second vote for "I didn't understand a lot of it". 
I read this and it's curious that he never mentions anywhere what the MTU size was and whether changing it had any effect on data transfer rates or buffering efficiency. 

-- 
Jim Ockers, P.Eng. ( ockers at ockers.net )
Contact info: http://www.ockers.ca/pason.html 

_______________________________________________ 
clue-tech mailing list 
clue-tech at cluedenver.org 
http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-tech/attachments/20101208/780721dc/attachment.html