Thanks, I will a look at that latter, but I am not too hopeful as I
get the same results on Vista as XP. One thought that has occurred
to me is could it be libpq.dll versions? I am not able to test until
later on today, but the server is postgresql 8.3 and the XP machine
is using libpq frim the 8.4 and the vista is using 9.0
Any way, I will try that this afternoon.
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:36 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/06/10 6:13 PM, Rob Brown-Bayliss wrote:
>>
>> Ok, So I did that, in the windows capture file are many many lines of
>> Red text on a black background, I assume thats a bad thing. It's
>> every second or third line vs just a handful on the linux capture.
>>
>> Most of these lines are like:
>>
>> postgresql [ACK] Seq=5429 Ack=##### Win=65700 Len=0
>>
>> Where the ACK number is always different.
>>
>> As I said before I really don't know what I am looking at.
>>
>
>
> While I come from a purely software background, over the years I've had to
> debug exactly these sorts of situations, and determined that I needed a
> better understanding of TCP/IP. I found the book "Internetworking with
> TCP/IP" by Douglas Comer et al extremely useful, particularlly volume II.
> Understanding how the underlying network protocols function has been handy
> time after time. I don't pretend to be a network engineer, but I can
> communicate with them in their own language and thats been extremely helpful
> too.
>
>
> In Wireshark, the color coding itself is pretty arbitrary, and sometimes
> excessively lurid :)
>
>
> every IP (internet protocol) packet has a source IP address, a destination
> IP address, and a protocol. TCP is protocol #6 UDP is 17, etc.
> every TCP packet has an IP packet header (above) plus a source port, a
> destination port, a sequence number, a ack value, a offset, some flags, a
> checksum, etc.
>
> once a TCP socket session has been fully established, the general sequence
> is, one side sends data packets, and the other side acknowleges them[1].
> Data packets should be around 1500 bytes each unless a smaller MTU has been
> negotiated. If one 1500 byte packet was sent and the server then had to
> wait for an acknowlege before sending another, you'd only be able to send
> one data packet every (PING TIME) milliseconds, which in yoru case here
> would be *excruciatingly* slow, so instead, TCP keeps sending data up to
> RWIN (TCP Recieve Window Size) bytes before it requires an ACK be sent back.
> That #### value on the ACK is what data its acknowledging, and undoubtably
> increases with each ACK. The RWIN value is negotiated between the client
> and the server, and Windows is notorious for using values too small for a
> wide area long pingtime fast network like this.
>
> If you're seeing a lot of ACKs it suggests that the RWIN value may be too
> low. Of particular importance is the timing of the packets coming from
> the remote server, do you get several fast, then a delay, or do they come in
> back to back at wire speed? Its actually quite OK and common for a
> client to send ACKs back 'early', as soon as it gets a packet to keep the
> data flowing, the key is if the sender is waiting for those ACKs, then RWIN
> is too small.
>
> You might have 1Mbyte/sec download bandwidth between this server and your
> client (arbitrary value I picked for sake of discussion).
>
> your round trip packet latency is 350mS, I believe you said. thats about
> 1/3rd of a second, which means about 300Kbytes can be "in the pipe". If
> your RWIN is, say, 64K (typical value used on a local network), the sender
> will only be able to send 64k before having to wait 350mS for a ACK. This
> will slow your pipe down about 5:1. If instead, the RWIN was above 300k,
> then the client will be able to keep up with the ACKs without the sender
> having to wait. Generally RWIN should be about twice as high as the data
> rate * the round trip latency.
>
> I haven't kept up with the details, but I definately remember having to
> manually crank RWIN up to the 500kbyte range as Windows wouldn't
> automatically go over 64k (in fact, going above 64k requires a TCP extension
> called "Window Scaling" which wasn't supported by earlier OSs at all)
>
>
> here's a typical sequence...
>
> server -> client
>> data 0 len 1500 {1500 bytes of data}
>> data 1500 len 1500 {1500 bytes of data}
>> data 3000 len 1500 {1500 bytes of data}
>> data 4500 len 1500 {1500 bytes of data}
> < ACK=3000
>>data 6000 len 1500 {1500 bytes of data)
>>data 7500 len 1500 {1500 bytes of data)
> < ACK=6000
>
>
> acking 3000 implicitly acknowleges everything before that.
>
> anyways, this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_Tuning and various
> linked articles may help you here.
>
> and this, http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2007.01.cableguy.aspx
> explains how to manually crank up a higher RWIN in Windows XP in particular
> which isn't very smart about it.
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] simplification. sockets are bidirectional, and both ends can send data
> to the other end, and the acknowledgments for received data can be sent with
> outbound data packets. Torrent makes extensive use of this.
>
>
>
--
--
Rob
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
