Re: Re: problem with CCID3 loss events

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi again,

I find out what was the problem. I recompile the latest 2.6.20 kernel
with Ian's patches, and my iperf client doesn't freeze anymore. So I
guess there is something wrong in Dave Miller's tree (I didn't use
Ian's patches).
dccp_probe module doesn't work either with his tree, it seg fault
trying to insert it.

Patrick.



On 31/05/07, Patrick Andrieux <patrick.andrieux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Burak,

I've got some issues doing tests on the same configuration you have.
I'm using Dave Miller's tree instead of 2.6.20 patched with Ian's patches.

When I run iperf client (DCCP patched) with :
# iperf -c serverIP -Xdccp -l8 -t60
my client machine freezes completely after sending a few data.
This issue appears only when I limit the rate on the netembox. (1024kbits/sec)

Did you ever have this problem ?

Patrick.



On 24/05/07, Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/25/07, Burak Gorkemli <burakgmail-dccp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Ian,
>
> Hi Burak,
>
> Adding DCCP @ vger as I think you mistakenly added DCCP @ ietf to the mailing...
>
> > Last but not the least, I have discovered that I am having some trouble with the sizes of the packets sent. When the packet sizes are equal to each other - which is not the actual case in my tests - everything goes fine. However, when they are not, DCCP behaves strangely, it halts for some period of time during the stream - I think due to the mismatch between the sizes of the packets sent and the average packet size used in the TCP equation. I must confess that I am not aggregating smaller packets into larger ones - which is the next thing that I will do - but I was not expecting such a big effect. I will post the test results later, as I implement packet aggregation.
>
> CCID3 in Linux keeps a moving average of the packet size. If you look
> at the TFRC equation  the rate = some numbers / packet size. In effect
> CCID3 therefore becomes rate limited by packets per second as it does
> not perform packet aggregation within the protocol (unlike TCP). This
> would explain your results in this regard.
>
> Ian
> --
> Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/
> Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz
> WAND Network Research Group
>
>



--
-------
Patrick ANDRIEUX
email : patrick.andrieux@xxxxxxxxx


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux DCCP]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [DDR & Rambus]

  Powered by Linux