<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Animats</author><text>That still irks me.  The real problem is not tinygram prevention.  It&amp;#x27;s ACK delays, and that stupid fixed timer.  They both went into TCP around the same time, but independently.  I did tinygram prevention (the Nagle algorithm) and Berkeley did delayed ACKs, both in the early 1980s. The combination of the two is awful.  Unfortunately by the time I found about delayed ACKs, I had changed jobs, was out of networking, and doing a product for Autodesk on non-networked PCs.&lt;p&gt;Delayed ACKs are a win only in certain circumstances - mostly character echo for Telnet. (When Berkeley installed delayed ACKs, they were doing a lot of Telnet from terminal concentrators in student terminal rooms to host VAX machines doing the work.  For that particular situation, it made sense.)  The delayed ACK timer is scaled to expected human response time. A delayed ACK is a bet that the other end will reply to what you just sent almost immediately. Except for some RPC protocols, this is unlikely. So the ACK delay mechanism loses the bet, over and over, delaying the ACK, waiting for a packet on which the ACK can be piggybacked, not getting it, and then sending the ACK, delayed. There&amp;#x27;s nothing in TCP to automatically turn this off.  However, Linux (and I think Windows) now have a TCP_QUICKACK socket option. Turn that on unless you have a very unusual application.&lt;p&gt;Turning on TCP_NODELAY has similar effects, but can make throughput worse for small writes. If you write a loop which sends just a few bytes (worst case, one byte) to a socket with &amp;quot;write()&amp;quot;, and the Nagle algorithm is disabled with TCP_NODELAY, each write becomes one IP packet.  This increases traffic by a factor of 40, with IP and TCP headers for each payload.  Tinygram prevention won&amp;#x27;t let you send a second packet if you have one in flight, unless you have enough data to fill the maximum sized packet.  It accumulates bytes for one round trip time, then sends everything in the queue.  That&amp;#x27;s almost always what you want. If you have TCP_NODELAY set, you need to be much more aware of buffering and flushing issues.&lt;p&gt;None of this matters for bulk one-way transfers, which is most HTTP today.  (I&amp;#x27;ve never looked at the impact of this on the SSL handshake, where it might matter.)&lt;p&gt;Short version: set TCP_QUICKACK.  If you find a case where that makes things worse, let me know.&lt;p&gt;John Nagle</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>How a little bit of TCP knowledge is essential</title><url>http://jvns.ca/blog/2015/11/21/why-you-should-understand-a-little-about-tcp/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jfb</author><text>I really enjoy reading Julia&amp;#x27;s blog. Not only does she have a real, infectious enthusiasm for learning; not only is the blog well written; but I also often learn a lot. Kudos.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>How a little bit of TCP knowledge is essential</title><url>http://jvns.ca/blog/2015/11/21/why-you-should-understand-a-little-about-tcp/</url></story>