[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving
From: |
K.J. Mansley |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving |
Date: |
11 Oct 2004 14:01:11 +0100 |
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 13:53, Atte Kojo wrote:
>
> This way a duplicate ack is sent only when the senders window is empty.
That's the effect I'd been hoping for with the "threshold" suggestion.
Sorry about that: I'm very busy with lots of other stuff at the moment,
so only have so much time to look into these things, and this detail
escaped me!
I'll see if I can check your fix in in the next few days. I think it's
an improvement on what we have, and if it makes other things worse,
we'll have to take another look.
Thanks
Kieran
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, (continued)
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, Wei Bo-Er \(Jason\), 2004/10/10
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, Craig Graham, 2004/10/11
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, K.J. Mansley, 2004/10/11
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, Atte Kojo, 2004/10/11
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, K.J. Mansley, 2004/10/11
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, Atte Kojo, 2004/10/11
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving,
K.J. Mansley <=
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, Wei Bo-Er \(Jason\), 2004/10/12
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, Craig Graham, 2004/10/12
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, Atte Kojo, 2004/10/12
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, Craig Graham, 2004/10/12
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, K.J. Mansley, 2004/10/16
- Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, Craig Graham, 2004/10/11
Re: [lwip-users] TCP performance in receiving, Sigurd Vindenes, 2004/10/27