OpenSSH
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Nagle & delayed ACK strike again

To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Subject: Re: Nagle & delayed ACK strike again
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:01:44 -0800
Cc: openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: openssh-unix-dev-list1@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: openssh-unix-dev-tmda@mindrot.org
Delivered-to: openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org
In-reply-to: <E1GxAul-0005oc-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
List-archive: <http://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-dev>
List-help: <mailto:openssh-unix-dev-request@mindrot.org?subject=help>
List-id: Development of portable OpenSSH <openssh-unix-dev.mindrot.org>
List-post: <mailto:openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev>, <mailto:openssh-unix-dev-request@mindrot.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev>, <mailto:openssh-unix-dev-request@mindrot.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <E1Gx45V-00052p-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu> <4589B1FC.8070709@hp.com> <E1GxAul-0005oc-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Sender: openssh-unix-dev-bounces+openssh-unix-dev-list1=securepoint.com@mindrot.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060601
>>My personal stance is that 99 times out of ten, if an end-user 
>>application speeds-up when it sets TCP_NODELAY, it implies the end-user 
>>application is broken and sending "logically associated" data in 
>>separate send calls.
> 
> 
> You tell me, is X protocol broken?  

Likely not - the discrete mouse events which are usually cited as the 
reason X needs TCP_NODLEAY are not logically associated.  Hence that is 
the 100th situation out of 10 rather then the 99.

> Is SFTP broken? 

Depends - is it writing logically associated data to the connection in 
more than one send call?

> I don't think
> SFTP more broken than any other network fs protocol.  The slowdown
> happens with a stream of WRITE requests and replies.  If the requests
> weren't acknowledged, there wouldn't be any trouble, but
> acknowledgements do make sense for synchronous operation.

Do you have some system call traces and/or packet traces we could look 
at?  If the write requests and replies are each single send call they 
probably qualify as the "X exception"

rick jones
_______________________________________________
openssh-unix-dev mailing list
openssh-unix-dev@mindrot.org
http://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>