Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 353 bytes --]

It just doesn't know. You'll have to choose a reasonable
value.

The difference is that the tcp code would just
send the message; without trying to guess what the
application needs. For example, your shell may
be happy using `line buffering' instead of the probably
big buffer your cat would use instead. A debugger may
use no buffer at all.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1866 bytes --]

From: smd@clock.org (Sean M. Doran)
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 03:23:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20011126112312.80AC9C7901@cesium.clock.org>

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.