On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Eric Travis wrote:
> Only if the definition of 'decent' translates to an effective
> cwnd of ~1 or 2 segments :o(
>
> You really want your (non-congestion based) losses bunched within
> single RTTs that are fairly widely spaced [how wide will depend
> on what your optimal cwnd for the path would be]. Otherwise TCP
> will be severely under driving your link.
Do you have data to support this? I have lots of measurements over a
channel simulator that say I can get >90% link utilization on a T1 using
TCP+standard_gadgets at 1E-8 BER, around 85% at 1E-7, and just over 50% at
1E-6. So even at 1E-6 I'm getting way better than your 1-2 segment cwnd
would give me. These are random errors, delay is GEO (250ms). If you have
data to the contrary I'd be very interested.
> I'm confident that if one pulls the archive and does a
> grep on BER, errors or loss - you will be able to extract
> virtually all the collected wisdom/opinions from the cyclic
> (and often passionate) "BER Wars" thread that appear every
> 2-3 months during 1998. I'm pretty sure it is all there
> already (several times).
I just did this. A search on BER gave maybe 6-7 hits, mostly incidental
stuff, and two of them were actually because someone had ROBERT in their
email address. Maybe this list needs a FAQ? ;) I'll look harder, but just
FYI...
-Vijay
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:54 EST