From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm
Message-Id: <20011126112312.80AC9C7901@cesium.clock.org>
From: smd@clock.org (Sean M. Doran)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 03:23:12 -0800
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 29275c1c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

nigel@9fs.org writes:

| Depends on your implementation of write().

and Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es> writes:

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

And how does your write(2) or wrapper around write(2)
know what the present maximum segment size is, given
that it can be altered at any time via a local interface
MTU change or a change in the path MTU?

How does pulling that into a wrapper which is used
almost universally fundamentally differ from retaining
in the TCP code with a system call which allows it to
be turned off on those rare occasions you want to do so?

	Sean.