From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <20011124200423.23463.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm
In-Reply-To: Message from "Russ Cox" <rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com>
   of "Sat, 24 Nov 2001 00:32:31 EST." <20011124053233.2D3F019A57@mail.cse.psu.edu>
From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 15:04:23 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 28c54414-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

| > > 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.

If user level buffering isn't needed, then why use it?  TCP is what it
is; we might as well use what it offers.  The normal unix api doesn't
give the user a way to tell tcp when pending data should be flushed,
but maybe it should have.  I believe that windows and linux have ways
to do that, so apparently some other people think so too.  (But Charles
says that Nagle turns off PSH.  Oh well.)