3 ms·
Why is this behavior "silly"? It seems to me like it's the correct behavior under the described conditions. (I'm not a networking expert though.) If the server
by mockery 11y ago
Why is this behavior "silly"? It seems to me like it's the correct behavior under the described conditions. (I'm not a networking expert though.)
If the server is incapable of handling the amount of data that the client is sending, shouldn't the buffers get smaller and smaller until they reach a size the server can handle reliably? (Assuming other variables like the latency of the connection or server load aren't changing.) If the server really can only handle a byte of data in the time it takes for a round-trip message, then it seems correct for the client to only send it one byte at a time...?
- mockery 11y ago(Oh I just realized that there are more pages to the article - the "next article" button caused me to overlook the "next page" button. Perhaps they explain what the problem is on subsequent pages.)
- gazzik 11y agoIt does make sense to shrink the window size, but the correct way is to shrink down to 0 instead of shrinking gradually. This is explained in the algorithm. Small window sizes = more overhead on the sending host