similar to: Packets being coallesced

On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 09:04:03AM +0100, Ricardo Galli wrote: > Sorry, didn't explain well. > > Nagle's algorithm (rfc896) buffers user data until there is no pending acks > or it can send a full segment (rfc1122). > > icecast doesn't need it at all, because it already sends large buffers and > the time to send the next buffers is relatively very long. IMO

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023, Chris Rapier wrote: > > The broader issue of hiding all potential keystroke timing is not yet fixed. > > Could some level of obfuscation come from enabling Nagle for interactive > sessions that has an associated TTY? Though that would be of limited > usefulness in low RTT environments. I don't like the idea of having a steady > drip of packets as that

Hi all, I'm running an Icecast-2.2 server with at peak times some 50 sources and 500 concurrent listeners all using low-bitrate 16kpbs streams. I'm experiencing some connection losses at these peak times ("Client connection died" message in error.log). The machine running Icecast has a 100Mbit connection to the internet. It is a Celeron 2.4Ghz machine with 1Gbyte of main

Please, check a tcpdump session on localhost while running the following script: library(parallel) library(tictoc) cl <- makeCluster(1) Sys.sleep(1) for (i in 1:10) { tic() x <- clusterEvalQ(cl, iris) toc() } The initialization phase comprises 7 packets. Then, the 1-second sleep will help you see where the evaluation starts. Each clusterEvalQ generates 6 packets: 1. main ->

Michael, With regard to your comment below: > As a streaming server, it's fairly crucial for icecast to send out > data with as low a delay as possible (many clients don't care, but > some do). That's why we use TCP_NODELAY - we actually WANT to send out > data as soon as we can. Can you explain how some clients depend on a low delay when receiving data from icecast? How

Hi, I was reading that 2.1 introduced an option to disable the nagle algorithm. Is that option still available in 3.2? Gerald

> As a streaming server, it's fairly crucial for icecast to > send out data with as low a delay as possible (many clients > don't care, but some do). That's why we use TCP_NODELAY - we > actually WANT to send out data as soon as we can. Nagle is inherently unsuited for streams. NODELAY was (imho) ment for connections for which Nagle isn't sufficient and CORK is not

> > p.s. For an in depth analysis of TCP_CORK read Christiopher Baus' excelent > article: http://www.baus.net/on-tcp_cork Thanks for this pointer. I'd been meaning to reply on this thread, but hadn't got around to it, primarily because I didn't really understand TCP_CORK (the linux manpage is, as usual, fairly unclear on what exactly it does). Now I understand! > >

On 24/02/02 05:02, Jack Moffitt shaped the electrons to say: > > - The server didn't check for the status of the client's socket before > > the unblocking send(). This caused a disconnection at a minimun network > > congestion, causing a broken pipe error (Linux 2.4 behaviour?) in the > > network. I've just added a poll in sock.c.> > Can you send me this

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, David Greene wrote: > As I work toward improving LLVM register allocation, I've > come across the need to do some refactoring. cool. :) One request: Evan is currently out on vacation until Monday. This is an area that he is very interested in and will want to chime in on. Please don't start anything drastic until he gets back :). > Specifically, I would

In certain situations sftp download speed can be much less than that of scp. After many days of trying to find the cause finally I found it to be the tcp nagle algorithm, which if turned off with TCP_NODELAY eliminates the problem. Now I see it being discussed back in 2002, but it still unresolved in openssh-4.2 :( Simple solution would be to add a NoDelay option to ssh which sftp would set.

Hi all, As I work toward improving LLVM register allocation, I've come across the need to do some refactoring. Specifically, I would like to separate register coalescing from live interval analysis. Right now LiveIntervals handles both. The reason I want to separate them is that other types of register allocators might like to do coalescing differently (e.g. graph coloring does it by

Hi Karl, Thanks for your info. I have a standard Icecast-2.2 release with a few local patches. I'm a little apprehesive to apply my patches to the kh14 branch, so I'd rather patch my branch with the changes related to batched reads from the kh branch. I've looked at your code to see if I could spot the changes related to batching reads. So far I have not been able to find where

On 24/02/02 08:17, Ricardo Galli shaped the electrons to say: > > > - Added TCP_NODELAY to a nonblocking socket. It is said that it's > > > improve performance in Linux. TODO: check Win32 compatibility. > > > > What's it supposed to do in general? I've had varying success with the > > advanced socket options. > > Turn the Nagle algorithm off,

Over the last two weeks, we have had at least two "incidents" where our asterisk server got flooded (a hundred or more per second) by SIP packets. Once from 114.31.50.10, second time from 173.212.200.146. We became aware of the problem when bandwidth started suffering because asterisk got very busy sending back replies or rejects (dunno which, I didn't investigate it any further).

I have a system in place where it appears that TCP will make a massive change in behavior mid-stream with existing SSH sessions. We noticed the issue first with an application using an SSH forward. However, we were able to rule that out by generating the same TCP characteristics by having a perl script dump text out to a terminal simulating a large data flow from the far end(ssh server) back

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, David Greene wrote: >> As I work toward improving LLVM register allocation, I've >> come across the need to do some refactoring. > > cool. :) One request: Evan is currently out on vacation until Monday. > This is an area that he is very interested in and will want to chime in > on. Please don't start anything

Dear LLVM guys, Hi. I first became to be interested in the compiler work, especially LLVM, since last October, still I'm a novice on here. (My major is not CS, either. :-\) Please forgive my ignorance. LLVM optimization and other tools are really fantastic. However I don't want LLVM breaks my 'for' statement in C code into basic blocks during compiling. I'm sure this sounds

On Apr 12, 2007, at 2:37 PM, David Greene wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, David Greene wrote: >>> As I work toward improving LLVM register allocation, I've >>> come across the need to do some refactoring. Yay! >> Beyond that, one of the issues is the "r2rmap" and "rep" >> function. As >> you've

Hi, I'm observing a nasty and strange behaviour with OpenSSH (SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_3.7.1p2) on Solaris 8 (Sparc). I searched the FAQ and list archive and I didn't find anything about it. The problem is that uploading through sftp is tremendously slow (~ 0.2KB/s) while downloading is ok (~ 200-300 KB/s), so I'm quite surprised. The machines I tested (client & server) are all in the