3 ms·
Of course I don't know much about this, but I find the first call to action a bit surprising: 1. Increase TCP initial congestion window to 10 (IW10). It seems
by wazoox 15y ago
Of course I don't know much about this, but I find the first call to action a bit surprising:
1. Increase TCP initial congestion window to 10 (IW10).
It seems contradictory with the general concept that too much buffering harms latency and may actually be aggravating congestion:
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893 http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2071893
- wmf 15y agoBufferbloat is caused by buffering hundreds of packets, not 10. Bandwidth-delay product has increased so much that the initial congestion window also needs to increase so that TCP can ramp up in a reasonable time.
- ck2 15y agoTheir own paper shows that it's still a controversial issue and after a certain point decreases performance.
- sp332 15y agoThis paper seems unreservedly in favor of larger windows. http://research.google.com/pubs/pub36640.html http://research.google.com/pubs/pub36640.html Based on our large scale experiments, we are pursuing efforts in the IETF to standardize TCP’s initial congestion window to at least ten segments. Preliminary experiments with even higher initial windows show indications of benefiting latency further while keeping any costs to a modest level. Future work should focus on eliminating the initial congestion window as a manifest constant to scale to even large network speeds and Web page sizes.
- ck2 15y agoI could be reading it wrong, but I think I see some issues: https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/ijjarvin/ietf79/slides.pdf https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/... IW10, while improving elapsed times, imposes higher queuing delay than IW3 However, if self-congesting, IW3 is more aggressive in terms of queuing delay AQM (RED) failed to control the increase in the queuing delay