*BSD News Article 72987


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.eng.convex.com!newshost.convex.com!newsgate.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc!zdc-e!szdc-e!news
From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: TCP latency
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 14:23:41 -0500
Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <31DEBD3D.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net>
References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <4pf7f9$bsf@white.twinsun.com> <31D2F0C6.167EB0E7@inuxs.att.com> <4rf4me$nve@hpindda.cup.hp.com> <31DEADD4.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5a (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:44205 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3946

John S. Dyson wrote:
> 
> Rick Jones wrote:
> >
> > TCP is indeed a streaming protocol, the performance of which is bound
> > by several things. One is how many CPU cycles it takes to send/recv a
> > packet. Another is the window size divided by the end-to-end latency
> > (W/RTT).
>
> My other point is that there are factors that affect latency, and
> the benchmark results being talked about are only a small part
> of the picture.  (It is essentially a benchmark testing one
> connection being made sequentially, with the rest of the
> machine doing unspecified things, (probably nothing.))  I
> would like to see a benchmark with many active connections and
> (perhaps if desired) several concurrent connection requests.  That
> would simulate more closely the environment in an active server.
> 
>
Following up to my own comment -- I meant to say that it is a single
"packet" being sent sequentially.  Of course, the comment would stand
for a connection also.

I fully expect stinging followups between the time that the previous
posting was received and this one, correcting the gaff.

John