[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth
From: |
Kieran Mansley |
Subject: |
Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:37:55 +0000 |
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 08:11 -0500, Chen wrote:
> /* TCP receive window. */
> #define TCP_WND 1500
>
> /* TCP sender buffer space (bytes). */
> #define TCP_SND_BUF 2150
The above two settings are much too small to expect decent throughput,
and almost certainly explain the poor performance in the 2048-byte-write
capture you sent. You can probably get away with leaving TCP_WND alone
if you're acting purely as a sender of packets, but TCP_SND_BUF should
be as large as you can make it.
Kieran
- [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/04
- [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/04
- [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/04
- [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/04
- Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/05
- Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth,
Kieran Mansley <=
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, address@hidden, 2009/03/05
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Kieran Mansley, 2009/03/06
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Kieran Mansley, 2009/03/06
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Francois Bouchard, 2009/03/06
- Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, address@hidden, 2009/03/06
Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/05
Re: Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth, Chen, 2009/03/05