From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>
Message-ID: <87oflu5gez.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <20011122132413.0BE83199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Nagle algorithm
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:34:21 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2867b4ac-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk writes:

> i think it's fundamentally misconceived and should at least never be
> on by default.

Well, this is overstated.  The Nagle algorithm (which we should be
calling "slow start") is actually hugely important on the net as a
whole; it's the Right Thing, albeit it's wrong for certain kinds of
rapid response RPC transactions.  But for the *vast* majority of IP
packets, it's completely right.

And, incidentally, it's not optional; the Host Requirements RFC's,
IIRC, require it.

> i claim it's not the TCP/IP subsystem's responsibility to delay
> sending something so that it can buffer up writes to make larger
> packets.  that's for stdio or bio (or local OS equivalent).

Sadly, that's not adequate for lots of good reasons, too much to go
into here, but it has been considered, and it's just not enough.