Re: [OT]: SSH and UDP tunnels
On Friday 02 February 2001 13:25, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:17:03PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 January 2001 18:02, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> > > We're using radio links quite a lot at work, and those can have
> > > approx 4Mbit (TCP), but can come up to 6Mbit w/ UDP...
> >
> > When the TCP performance is lower than the entire bandwidth of the link
> > it is because of packet loss. This is no surprise on a radio link!
> >
> > To increase performance you can decrease the number of packets
> > (preferred) or tweak TCP to retransmit more agressively.
Sorry, the above should read "decrease the number of packets lost". If you
don't have SACK enabled then loss of a small packet or of a large packet will
have much the same affect on throughput. One time I tested this on a 28K8
modem link and found that a 1% packet loss halved the throughput.
> I suspect TCP also suffers due to the latency of the link.
The latency is a big problem for small transfers due to slow-start and the
three stage handshake. But if you want to transfer a few megs of data then
latency SHOULD NOT be such a problem.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: