This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

Hash: SHA256

On 01/09/2012 02:43 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Johan,
> please don't  Thanks.
> On Jan  4 21:25, Johan van den Berg wrote:
>> I am very happy to report that increasing the send and receive
>> buffers has done the job (at least, on a 10MBit link but will be
>> testing a 100Mbit in a few days). I calculated the ideal size as
>> per 
> it's nice to know that you could increase the performance by
> increasing the buffer sizes.  However, I'm reluctant to implement
> this as a generic option.  As far as I know the socket buffers are
> taken from nonpaged pool, so generically using 2 Meg buffers will
> take a lot of precious resources.
> I made a test in a local LAN between Linux and a W7 64 bit machine,
> and I didn't see a lot of difference between 64K, 2 Megs, or
> letting the OS decide.  So I'm wondering if it's not the best
> option to let the OS decide starting with Vista and later.
Testing it on LAN will not show much. The buffer/TCP window size is
important for high latency * bandwidth product connections.

> How's the performance in your scenario when applying the below
> patch instead of yours?

- -- 
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]