I want this too ;) For one, it would be a perfect example of using
good existing tools to achieve the goal instead of inventing
something big and new. Also it does not reduce MTU unlike
Now it's an imperfect example due to noted TCP over TCP performance
problem ('internal meltdown').
> Is this even remotely reasonable? If it would cause performance
> degradation it'd have to be a config option or never make the kernel
> at all (Linus may never accept it regardless I suppose) But ignoring
> that for a moment, is it just too hairy to contemplate? I've done a
> few patches here and there for Linux in the past, but nothing like
> this (and nothing involving networking) so it is far beyond my
> capability. But if something was cooked up that works well enough
> I'd be willing to try polishing it and porting between kernel
> versions where necessary.
> But I'd take any suggestions for alterations in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/*
> that might help the current state of things.
I'm looking there for the first time ever, but it seems you
can twiddle TCP parameters in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_*
(OTOH I don't see retransmit timeout controls there...
maybe they have another name?)
In order to make them per-iface one needs to have an ability to
override them in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/ethX.
Seems like this is not implemented.
-- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/