4 ms·
A compare and contrast of your code vs their code would be awesome to see. E.g., an analysis of the difference between the two approaches and why his managed to
by iheartmemcache 11y ago
A compare and contrast of your code vs their code would be awesome to see. E.g., an analysis of the difference between the two approaches and why his managed to get pulled upstream and yours didn't. Perhaps, a retrospective on what you would have changed as well.
- baruch 11y agoThere are few small patches of mine that did enter: 8a3c3a9 [TCP]: Check num sacks in SACK fast path 6f74651 [TCP]: Seperate DSACK from SACK fast path fda03fb [TCP]: Advance fast path pointer for first block only db3ccda [TCP]: Fix sorting of SACK blocks. One can find the accepted patches from Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi> in the git history log. I'm trying to find my old patches. Look for commits from 2006-2007 which are mostly relevant to this topic. The big issue was that the retransmit list was over 10,000 items long and SACK/DSACK/retransmit loops needed to traverse this list from the start for each new packet that arrived. It made transmission fall in performance when doing 100Mbps at 200msec latency (high Bandwidth Delay Product means a very large queue of inflight packets). Edit: I found a set of patches but to do a proper analysis will take me just too much time that I prefer to invest into new things. Maybe I'll do that when I will want a distraction from my current projects :-)