From: rick.jones2@hp.com
Christoph Kukulies wrote:
> A question about packet processing speed:
> I have a server and a client which communicate via a socket (ipv4,
> AF_INET). The client sends a connect. The server does an accept and
> waits for further messages from the client on that socket (using
> select()).
> The design of the higher level protocol is the following way:
> client server
> send(REQUEST) ---------------------------> recv(REQUEST)
> recv(DATA) <-------------------------- send(DATA or ERROR CODE)
> recv(END) <-------------------------- send(END)
> Now it turns out that the doubly sending of packets makes the whole
> communication very slow and I have no idea why at the moment.
> Each transaction in the above way takes 0.2 seconds and calculatiing
> alone from the wire speed (100Mbit/s) for 256 bytes I would expect
> smaller transmission times. Lowering the packet size down to 70
> doesn't have any impact on the time I'm achieving.
> But when I remove the sending of the END packet, I'm getting a
> drastic performance increase, that is the transaction goes down to
> 600 in 1 second. A 600fold performance increase.
Some boilerplate likely related to what you are experiencing:
> I'm not familiar with this issue, and I'm mostly ignorant about what
> tcp does below the sockets interface. Can anybody briefly explain what
> "nagle" is, and how and when to turn it off? Or point me to the
> appropriate manual.
In broad terms, whenever an application does a send() call, the logic
of the Nagle algorithm is supposed to go something like this:
1) Is the quantity of data in this send, plus any queued, unsent data,
greater than the MSS (Maximum Segment Size) for this connection? If
yes, send the data in the user's send now (modulo any other
constraints such as receiver's advertised window and the TCP
congestion window). If no, go to 2.
2) Is the connection to the remote otherwise idle? That is, is there
no unACKed data outstanding on the network. If yes, send the data
in the user's send now. If no, queue the data and wait. Either the
application will continue to call send() with enough data to get to
a full MSS-worth of data, or the remote will ACK all the currently
sent, unACKed data, or our retransmission timer will expire.
Now, where applications run into trouble is when they have what might
be described as "write, write, read" behaviour, where they present
logically associated data to the transport in separate 'send' calls
and those sends are typically less than the MSS for the connection.
It isn't so much that they run afoul of Nagle as they run into issues
with the interaction of Nagle and the other heuristics operating on
the remote. In particular, the delayed ACK heuristics.
When a receiving TCP is deciding whether or not to send an ACK back to
the sender, in broad handwaving terms it goes through logic similar to
this:
a) is there data being sent back to the sender? if yes, piggy-back the
ACK on the data segment.
b) is there a window update being sent back to the sender? if yes,
piggy-back the ACK on the window update.
c) has the standalone ACK timer expired.
Window updates are generally triggered by the following heuristics:
i) would the window update be for a non-trivial fraction of the window
- typically somewhere at or above 1/4 the window, that is, has the
application "consumed" at least that much data? if yes, send a
window update. if no, check ii.
ii) would the window update be for, the application "consumed," at
least 2*MSS worth of data? if yes, send a window update, if no
wait.
Now, going back to that write, write, read application, on the sending
side, the first write will be transmitted by TCP via nagle rule 2 -
the connection is otherwise idle. However, the second small send will
be delayed as there is at that point unACKnowledged data outstanding
on the connection.
At the receiver, that small TCP segment will arrive and will be passed
to the application. The application does not have the entire app-level
message, so it will not send a reply (data to TCP) back. The typical
TCP window is much much larger than the MSS, so no window update would
be triggered by heuristic i. The data just arrived and consumed by the
application is < 2*MSS, so no window update from heuristic ii. Since
there is no window update, no ACK is sent by heuristic b.
So, that leaves heuristic c - the standalone ACK timer. That ranges
anywhere between 50 and 200 milliseconds depending on the TCP stack in
use.
If you've read this far :) now we can take a look at the effect of
various things touted as "fixes" to applications experiencing this
interaction. We take as our example a client-server application where
both the client and the server are implemented with a write of a small
application header, followed by application data. First, the
"default" case which is with Nagle enabled (TCP_NODELAY _NOT_ set) and
with standard ACK behaviour:
Client Server
Req Header ->
<- Standalone ACK after Nms
Req Data ->
<- Possible standalone ACK
<- Rsp Header
Standalone ACK ->
<- Rsp Data
Possible standalone ACK ->
For two "messages" we end-up with at least six segments on the wire.
The possible standalone ACKs will depend on whether the server's
response time, or client's think time is longer than the standalone
ACK interval on their respective sides. Now, if TCP_NODELAY is set we
see:
Client Server
Req Header ->
Req Data ->
<- Possible Standalone ACK after Nms
<- Rsp Header
<- Rsp Data
Possible Standalone ACK ->
In theory, we are down two four segments on the wire which seems good,
but frankly we can do better. First though, consider what happens
when someone disables delayed ACKs
Client Server
Req Header ->
<- Immediate Standalone ACK
Req Data ->
<- Immediate Standalone ACK
<- Rsp Header
Immediate Standalone ACK ->
<- Rsp Data
Immediate Standalone ACK ->
Now we definitly see 8 segments on the wire. It will also be that way
if both TCP_NODELAY is set and delayed ACKs are disabled.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
