Nagle's algorithm reduces small-packet overhead by buffering outgoing data; in which situation is this buffering most likely to be beneficial?

• A. Large bulk transfers benefit most from Nagle
• B. Non-time-critical transmissions with frequent small writes can benefit from buffering
• C. UDP transmissions benefit from buffering
• D. Real-time voice traffic with stringent latency requirements benefits from buffering

Answer: (B)

Nagle's algorithm reduces small-packet overhead by buffering outgoing data until the previous transmission is acknowledged or enough data has accumulated to fill a TCP segment, then sending a larger segment. This trades a bit of delay for significantly fewer packets and lower header overhead. It’s most beneficial when the application isn’t timing-sensitive but frequently writes small chunks of data, because the buffering lets those small writes be combined into fewer, larger packets. If the data must arrive immediately, the delay from buffering hurts, and for real-time or low-latency use cases you’d avoid this buffering. UDP isn’t affected by this mechanism, and large bulk transfers don’t gain as much from buffering because they naturally fill segments anyway. So the best fit is non-time-critical transmissions with frequent small writes.