This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 01/09/2012 02:43 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Johan,
>
> please don't http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU. Thanks.
>
> On Jan 4 21:25, Johan van den Berg wrote:
>> I am very happy to report that increasing the send and receive
>> buffers has done the job (at least, on a 10MBit link but will be
>> testing a 100Mbit in a few days). I calculated the ideal size as
>> per
>> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-hisock/index.html
>
>>
> it's nice to know that you could increase the performance by
> increasing the buffer sizes. However, I'm reluctant to implement
> this as a generic option. As far as I know the socket buffers are
> taken from nonpaged pool, so generically using 2 Meg buffers will
> take a lot of precious resources.
>
> I made a test in a local LAN between Linux and a W7 64 bit machine,
> and I didn't see a lot of difference between 64K, 2 Megs, or
> letting the OS decide. So I'm wondering if it's not the best
> option to let the OS decide starting with Vista and later.
Testing it on LAN will not show much. The buffer/TCP window size is
important for high latency * bandwidth product connections.
>
> How's the performance in your scenario when applying the below
> patch instead of yours?
- --
VZ
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iF4EAREIAAYFAk8LF40ACgkQbJlIwZz1Ood/rwEAojdJKMJFtpmjKfOelJxa0p5L
s8aSKELVKao7/IN0WAIA/0Z7osFYBOw4plvQ7ToDLHgquhbKBdI+9FfDSIta7PIP
=wpBf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple