network "buffer"

aquatic

What is the deal behind this "r window" or whatever. Wouldn't make it as big as possible make Internet faster no matter what speed you connect at? I keep seeing that you want it big only if you're on broadband. So what's the [seinfeld]deeeal[/seinfeld] with this? What's the deal with busses anyway? You're either on or you're off! [wave hands] Make up your mind! [/waving hands]

thuh freak

i'm not exactly sure that i know what you're referring to, but assuming you're referring to the buffer stored up before network packets get thrown across the internet (ie: the window size), its not always good to have it really big. if a protocol has a lot of small back and forth communication, then a large window would slow that down. example, protocol A wants to communicate between computers B and C. B wants to say to C, "hi". C wants to reply, "how are you?". if the window size is large, like 12 letters, it would be fine for C's communication, but the protocol wouldn't get that opportunity because computer B hasn't built up 12 letters to talk about yet. It has only said "hi". So the networking layer is not even sending computer C that "hi" message, waiting until computer B adds more to the conversation (or until an arbitrary delay when the computer forces the window to be pushed out, with junk data in the blank spots).



and if you make it too small, that also can be bad, because after your program's protocol makes its packets, the lower levels add on their own headers and footers (extra baggage) to the data. so small windows will have a lot of the level 1-6 headers/footers (much of which will be redundant, but necessary information per window). in the previous example, level 7 would be the "hi" and "how are you?" messages. but on level 1, the internet addresses of the two users would be added on in some manner. with a window size of 2 letters, computers C would receive "B's Address;C's Address;Hi". Then it would reply, "C's Address;B's Address;Ho" (1 window), "C's Address;B's Address;w " (2nd window), "C's Address;B's Address;ar" (3rd window), "C's Address;B's Address;e " (4th Window), "C's Address;B's Address;Yo" (5th window), "C's Address;B's Address;u?" (6th window). So, across the network, a lot of information is being repeated and a lot of traffic has to be directed. This all happens transparent to the protocol (A), but is a heavy burden on the network, especially on all the hubs, switches and routers between computers B and C. (of course, thats not how actual packets really look on level 1, I was just trying to simplify it for the example.)

aquatic

What would be the best for maximum performance on a Carracho server? Regular server? How would Carrafix impact this? Would it really make a difference in surfing the web? What is better for modems surfing, and for broadband surfing. Thanks but you just raised even more questions.

thuh freak

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquatic

What would be the best for maximum performance on a Carracho server? Regular server? How would Carrafix impact this? Would it really make a difference in surfing the web? What is better for modems surfing, and for broadband surfing. Thanks but you just raised even more questions.

well, i hope i atleast explained why huge windows aren't always good. i dont know too much about the carracho protocol, so i can't really comment on big or small windows, and certainly not on a particular number. infact, even if i could calculate the average message size from client or server, it still might not make a great window size. and i have no idea how big the layer 1-6 headers/footers are, so i can't really come up with any specific numbers. in general, dialup and slow internet users should have smaller windows than broadband and faster internet users, because larger windows have an increased chance of being dropped (then they have to be resent), which causes latency. that latency is easily made up for on fast connections, but not on dialup. to come up with a good number, try changing it around every couple of hours, and see what's best for you. the window size can make a significant difference on all internet applications (not just the web), if you get the size tuned well.

aquatic

Thank you that cleared it up regarding which is better for dialup/broadband. A Carracho server is probably the same as any other server, don't know though. I'm guessing a big buffer would be good for a server? Because things in it that are being downloaded by multiple people can be read out of the buffer right? And if something is being uploaded and downloaded at the same time it can use the buffer? Actually I bet it can't do this, but if it could then theoretically it would be a LOT faster, just like using program data in RAM instead from the drive.

thuh freak

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquatic

Thank you that cleared it up regarding which is better for dialup/broadband. A Carracho server is probably the same as any other server, don't know though. I'm guessing a big buffer would be good for a server? Because things in it that are being downloaded by multiple people can be read out of the buffer right? And if something is being uploaded and downloaded at the same time it can use the buffer? Actually I bet it can't do this, but if it could then theoretically it would be a LOT faster, just like using program data in RAM instead from the drive.

well, by my understanding of windows, a server really isn't able to put downloads to several users on a single window. each window has to be routed to exactly one internet address (because each window definitely has one destination address). so they wouldn't benefit from it like that. and, if their windows are too large, then early communication, like when u first connect to a server, would be slow. because the first connection is usually just "hi, this is a server.", "hi server, my username is ...". when it gets to downloading files and uploading files, larger windows are good though. each window has one source and one destination though, so u can't really add multiple downloads/uploads into one. carracho is very similar to most file servers, from the window perspective, because most of its comm is large (well, the file comm is large). but again, carracho also allows chat, which is very small, and would benefit from very small windows.

aquatic

Freak i be edumacated now. Thanks. I'll just pump up the window for file transfer, during college my comp just sits there being a server. I have my roommate's big PC for games then.