Re: Re: Re: [lwip-users] Re: tx badnwidth

[Chen]

Thanks for your suggestion

I increased the TCP_SND_BUF to 32000 and PBUF_POOL_SIZE to 16, and the tx
and rx ends are fighting now, trying to resolve the tcp window update, it
seems

please see
http://www.dataq.com/chen/new.cap

What is the rule of thumb to set up these two parameters? Can the first
be be larger than 32K?

>>>>>>>>>

> >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, can the PBUF_POOL_SIZE 6 also be a problem?

Yes, especially once the TCP_SND_BUF is made larger.

Kieran