3 ms·
Yeah, but you don't need to do much to TCP to make it work perfectly well on wireless. Let me repeat that: Don't fuck with TCP. TCP is fine. It's BUILT to deal
by kabdib 15y ago
Yeah, but you don't need to do much to TCP to make it work perfectly well on wireless.
Let me repeat that: Don't fuck with TCP. TCP is fine. It's BUILT to deal with your lousy network, it's DESIGNED to deal with nuclear attacks from the Guys of the Bad Color, and (ironically) the worst thing you can do to TCP is to try to be nice to it.
"What about keep-alives?"
There are no keep-alives in TCP. If two hosts are in agreement about the address and port, they can keep a connection in an open state until the universe goes cold. (There may be keepalives necessary /above/ TCP, but TCP itself doesn't use 'em). Don't yammer something about your internal state every 30 seconds; you don't do it on the bus home, so don't do it on your network, either.
"Don't we need this proprietary fancy-schmancy buffering algorithm from FuppedUck Communications Consultants? They keep telling us we're toast without it."
No. Just run TCP. Spend money on decent routers.
"I'm feeling really nervous and I want to, like, disable Nagle for everything. Isn't that what you do? Turn Nagle off and maybe muck with the --"
You're from AT&T, aren't you?
- ori_b 15y agoNot entirely true. TCP is certainly decent, but it's not designed to deal with networks where the delays are extremely transient and the capacity is variable. It's not designed for heavy buffering. And so on. It can be fixed with congestion control protocols tacked on the side, I think, but it's designed for wired networking with slow transients in the performance profile. It IS, however, better than anything that I'd be able to hack together quickly.