From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20011123115816.4863819A7E@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 11:58:13 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 288229ae-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>>Well, this is overstated.  The Nagle algorithm (which we should be
>>calling "slow start") is actually hugely important on the net as a

rfc1122 correctly distinguishes `slow start' (by Van Jacobsen), which
again seems a reasonable responsibility for TCP/IP, from Nagle's algorithm
for coalescing short segments, which is the one that seems ill-advised
to me, however effective in benchmarks.  the same section of the rfc
discusses avoiding silly windows which also seems fine
to me, and perhaps that was due to Nagle too; i haven't checked
a copy of the original paper.  (mind you, checking the original is quite often
sensible because you discover that some idea has taken on
a life of its own out of the original context.)

i do find that quite a lot of this smacks of trying to
compensate for inadequate data provided by the protocol or the network.