From |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org  Mon Nov  2 14:47:36 2020
From: |uc@r @end|ng |rom |edor@project@org (=?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Ucar?=)
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 14:47:36 +0100
Subject: [Rd] parallel PSOCK connection latency is greater on Linux?
In-Reply-To: <7486JQ.F60K6EHKGCP02@vtkellers.com>
References: <JQG4JQ.RSMMA5AL6E0M3@vtkellers.com>
 <6B25B60C-EF8D-4CAF-856F-E948C27BD5CA@R-project.org>
 <CALEXWq3SXK5_=JTQ3ZfXN+upU=NLrMaqZdzzCuXBumMmyvVDMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7486JQ.F60K6EHKGCP02@vtkellers.com>
Message-ID: <CALEXWq36bnR-+Gv8XU2U1BwaaM12V381fTCRUaN72dO2NKbmLg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 14:29, Jeff <jeff at vtkellers.com> wrote:
>
> Could TCP_NODELAY and TCP_QUICKACK be exposed to the R user so that
> they might determine what is best for their potentially latency- or
> throughput-sensitive application?

I think it makes sense (with a sensible default). E.g., Julia does this [1-2].

[1] https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/stdlib/Sockets/#Sockets.nagle
[2] https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/stdlib/Sockets/#Sockets.quickack

-- 
I?aki ?car



[Rd] parallel PSOCK connection latency is greater on Linux?
=?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Ucar?=