Thursday 15 January 2004 23:59, David S. Miller wrote: > It would be very interesting to see how westwood+ compares to F-RTO, > in particular over wireless networks since both purport to improve > things over such technologies. > > Since F-RTO is available in both 2.4.x and 2.6.x kernels now, such > experiments should be easy to run. > > Also, it would be interesting, once we have a working TCP Vegas > implementation again, to see how combinations of Westwood+/VEGAS and > F-RTO/Vegas compared to flat new-reno. In particular, since VEGAS > attempts to avoid the packet loss from happening in the first place, > and if it does still happen Westwood+/F-RTO will handle them more > gracefully, the overall result should be something approaching the > sum of the parts :-) I am currently working on some modifies proposed by a project named TCP-Hybla, which has the purpose to improve large-rtt (sat) connections. It is reported to be fully compatible to Westwood+, since it only modifies initial window selection and slow start/congestion avoidance algorithm, as a replacement for Reno/Vegas. I think it would be useful to implement some kind of packet spacing too, so I am planning to start writing it from scratch. If you know about any active or previous work involving pacing, I would really appreciate if you let me know. Regards -- Daniele Lacamera root@danielinux.net - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
