From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Message-Id: <200111271855.NAA16413@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm
In-Reply-To: <87g070wwg7.fsf@becket.becket.net>
References: <ytu1vhu6xb.fsf@cesium.clock.org> <200111261922.OAA12040@augusta.math.psu.edu>
Cc:
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:55:23 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2b51188e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

In article <87g070wwg7.fsf@becket.becket.net> you write:
>cross@math.psu.edu (Dan Cross) writes:
>
>> If you wanted to buffer 200 ``a's'' before sending them, why not do that
>> explicitly?
>
>Because the only way to know the correct number to buffer involves
>knowing transport level information like the MSS and so forth.

Uhh, why?  The only reason I can think of is that sizeof buffer % MSS
might be a rather small number, but if sizeof buffer is large enough,
then that gets amortized over the lifetime of the connection.  What's
more, if coalesion can occur without any additional latency (which is
likely over a long haul network, which is where you care anyway), even
that goes away.  What's more, you cut down on OS overhead by buffering
in userland.

	- Dan C.