Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm

[forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 556 bytes --]

not only that, but the Nagle algorithm explicitly ignores the PSH bit
anyway:

                 The Nagle algorithm is generally as follows:

                      If there is unacknowledged data (i.e., SND.NXT >
                      SND.UNA), then the sending TCP buffers all user
                      data (regardless of the PSH bit), until the
                      outstanding data has been acknowledged or until
                      the TCP can send a full-sized segment (Eff.snd.MSS
                      bytes; see Section 4.2.2.6).


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1733 bytes --]

To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 00:32:31 -0500
Message-ID: <20011124053233.2D3F019A57@mail.cse.psu.edu>

> > i claim it's not the TCP/IP subsystem's responsibility to delay
> > sending something so that it can buffer up writes to make larger
> > packets.  that's for stdio or bio (or local OS equivalent).
>
> If there was a way for the user say when to set TCP's PUSH bit,
> would that do the job?

Why would you want this?  I thought the above
was a very effective argument.

Russ