|
|||||||||||
|
Re: [e2e] query reg improving TCP performane
From: query <query.cdac(at)gmail.com>
Date: Fri Jul 06 2007 - 02:32:54 EDT
> I was doing some Bandwidth measurement test on a 100 mbs link with a RTT > > The papers probably said that *router* buffers need to equal the > bandwidth*RTT. You are adjusting the sender/receiver buffers. These > need to be significantly larger, as you have found.
The papers or rather articles are talking of sender
and receiver
buffers . Here is one such link where I find it. http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/tcptune/ .
In order to allow retransmissions, the sender buffer needs to be able
> > In order to be able to provide in-order delivery, the receiver buffer > needs to be able to hold even more packets. If a packet is lost, it > will receive an entire RTT (plus router buffer) worth of data before > the first retransmission of that packet will arrive. If the first > retransmission is also lost, then it will need to store yet another > RTT worth of data. > > The general rule-of-thumb for Reno is that the send buffer should be > at least twice the bandwidth*RTT. For BIC is is probably reduced to > about 120% of the BDP (because it reduces its window by a smaller > factor when there is a loss). The receive buffer should still be at > least equal to the BDP plus the router buffer. What I understand from your reply, is that It is not necessary that TCP Window should be equal to BDP in all cases . Had the router buffer size is equal to BDP , then I think I should equal link utilisation equal to the capacity of the link . Since , In Internet it will not be possible to know the router buffer size , so the best thing one can do , is to make the TCP window size twice to BDP as you have suggested.
I am finding another problem. The UDP transmission rate on that link is
decreased. I changed
The readings are like this.......... iperf -u -c 192.168.60.62 -t 300 -l 1460 -i 2 Client connecting to 192.168.60.62, UDP port 5001 Sending 1460 byte datagrams UDP buffer size: 108 KByte (default) [ 3] local 10.128.0.2 port 32785 connected with 192.168.60.62 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] -0.0- 2.0 sec 257 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 2.0- 4.0 sec 257 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 4.0- 6.0 sec 255 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 6.0- 8.0 sec 257 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 8.0-10.0 sec 255 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 10.0-12.0 sec 257 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 12.0-14.0 sec 255 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 14.0-16.0 sec 257 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 16.0-18.0 sec 257 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec
The result is for the following tuning.
net.core.rmem_default = 110592
After that I changed the tuning to
net.core.rmem_default = 196608
net.core.wmem_default = 196608
The readings for the tuning is like this... iperf -u -c 192.168.60.62 -t 300 -l 1460 -i 2 Client connecting to 192.168.60.62, UDP port 5001 Sending 1460 byte datagrams UDP buffer size: 192 KByte (default) [ 3] local 10.128.0.2 port 32785 connected with 192.168.60.62 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] -0.0- 2.0 sec 257 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 2.0- 4.0 sec 257 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 4.0- 6.0 sec 255 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 6.0- 8.0 sec 257 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 8.0-10.0 sec 255 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 10.0-12.0 sec 257 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec [ 3] 12.0-14.0 sec 255 KBytes 1.05 Mbits/sec
Kindly please help me to rectify the problem. It is the same link on which
I
regards
>
I hope this help,
> > -- > Lachlan Andrew Dept of Computer Science, Caltech > 1200 E California Blvd, Mail Code 256-80, Pasadena CA 91125, USA > Phone: +1 (626) 395-8820 Fax: +1 (626) 568-3603 > Received on Fri Jul 6 19:03:38 2007 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 09 2007 - 08:35:36 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||