[e2e] Are Packet Trains / Packet Bursts a Problem in TCP?

Jeroen Massar jeroen at unfix.org
Mon Sep 25 12:43:47 PDT 2006

Bob Braden wrote:
>   *> 
>   *> There are places where improving TCP burstiness can be of value, such  
>   *> as in the cases where (usually Linux) TCPs decide to send their  
>   *> entire next window in a short period of time it would be nice of they  
>   *> could be convinced to do so at a rate that doesn't exceed cwnd/srtt. 
> The ability of an OS to do that pacing has traditionally been limited
> by the coarse-grain software clocks that were available -- i.e., by
> interrupt overhead.  Suppose CPU chip designers listened to the needs
> of networking people.  Could they provide fine-grain hardware clocks
> that could be easily used by transport protocols for pacing out packets
> in large windows?

You mean like HPET ?

Also partially discussed here:

These should give one quite a good clock for doing things like that.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20060925/533d6189/signature.bin

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list