67bf1d6c9e
Tests performed between a 1 Gbps connected server and a 100 mbps client,
distant by 95ms showed that:
- we need 1.1 MB in flight to fill the link
- rare but inevitable losses are sufficient to make cubic's window
collapse fast and long to recover
- a 100 MB object takes 69s to download
- tolerance for 1 loss between two ACKs suffices to shrink the download
time to 20-22s
- 2 losses go to 17-20s
- 4 losses reach 14-17s
At 100 concurrent connections that fill the server's link:
- 0 loss tolerance shows 2-3% losses
- 1 loss tolerance shows 3-5% losses
- 2 loss tolerance shows 10-13% losses
- 4 loss tolerance shows 23-29% losses
As such while there can be a significant gain sometimes in setting this
tolerance above zero, it can also significantly waste bandwidth by sending
far more than can be received. While it's probably not a solution to real
world problems, it repeatedly proved to be a very effective troubleshooting
tool helping to figure different root causes of low transfer speeds. In
spirit it is comparable to the no-cc congestion algorithm, i.e. it must
not be used except for experimentation.
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| design-thoughts | ||
| internals | ||
| lua-api | ||
| 51Degrees-device-detection.txt | ||
| DeviceAtlas-device-detection.txt | ||
| HAProxyCommunityEdition_60px.png | ||
| SOCKS4.protocol.txt | ||
| SPOE.txt | ||
| WURFL-device-detection.txt | ||
| acl.fig | ||
| coding-style.txt | ||
| configuration.txt | ||
| cookie-options.txt | ||
| gpl.txt | ||
| haproxy.1 | ||
| intro.txt | ||
| lgpl.txt | ||
| linux-syn-cookies.txt | ||
| lua.txt | ||
| management.txt | ||
| netscaler-client-ip-insertion-protocol.txt | ||
| network-namespaces.txt | ||
| peers-v2.0.txt | ||
| peers.txt | ||
| proxy-protocol.txt | ||
| queuing.fig | ||
| regression-testing.txt | ||
| seamless_reload.txt | ||
