Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm

[Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 113 bytes --]

If that's a problem for your cat, you could convince
your cat to use Bio; and retain your abstraction as well.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2277 bytes --]

From: "Sean M. Doran" <smd@cesium.clock.org>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:07:28 +0100
Message-ID: <ytu1vhu6xb.fsf@cesium.clock.org>

forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk writes:

> ...  Nagle's algorithm for coalescing short segments,
> which is the one that seems ill-advised to me

So, how many packets should the following code segment generate?

    #include <unistd.h>
    /* for int usleep(useconds_t microseconds); */

    for(i=0; i < 200; i++) {
             write(tcpfd, "a", 1);
             usleep(100);
    }

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

Abstraction and information-hiding are usually considered helpful.
Who wants to muck around with RTT and pMTU in an application
which just might happen to write to a TCP connection?
Perhaps cat(1) isn't complicated enough yet?

     Sean.