From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fco.J.Ballesteros To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-jlklxuyqfdhfmlgdnrlvovavxz" Message-Id: <20011126113203.3915619A2E@mail.cse.psu.edu> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:07:56 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 292d1788-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-jlklxuyqfdhfmlgdnrlvovavxz Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. --upas-jlklxuyqfdhfmlgdnrlvovavxz Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by aquamar; Mon Nov 26 18:23:17 MET 2001 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.16.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 91E7A19A2A; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 06:24:13 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from cesium.clock.org (cesium.clock.org [216.240.40.205]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 0B4A319A00 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 06:23:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by cesium.clock.org (Postfix, from userid 42) id 80AC9C7901; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 03:23:12 -0800 (PST) To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm Message-Id: <20011126112312.80AC9C7901@cesium.clock.org> From: smd@clock.org (Sean M. Doran) Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.7 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Help: List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 03:23:12 -0800 (PST) nigel@9fs.org writes: | Depends on your implementation of write(). and Fco.J.Ballesteros 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. --upas-jlklxuyqfdhfmlgdnrlvovavxz--