From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from deliverator3.gatech.edu (deliverator3.gatech.edu [130.207.165.163]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3E3200648 for ; Sat, 21 May 2011 09:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C8B1550A8; Sat, 21 May 2011 12:34:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from deliverator3.gatech.edu by deliverator3.gatech.edu with queue id 1985180-6; Sat, 21 May 2011 16:34:00 GMT Received: from mail1.gatech.edu (mail1.gatech.edu [130.207.185.161]) by deliverator3.gatech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D8C154002; Sat, 21 May 2011 12:33:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.0.200] (196-215-46-233.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.215.46.233]) (Authenticated sender: ssundaresan3) by mail1.gatech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD312C2EF9; Sat, 21 May 2011 12:33:57 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Srikanth Sundaresan In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 18:33:53 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <58F7BFB9-8382-427A-986C-5FAFB90A8DD4@gatech.edu> References: <9EFCAA58-92E8-45FD-9BE4-F213564264E6@cc.gatech.edu> <5C1FCBFC-B007-4B01-A7BA-6CCD5523DC34@cc.gatech.edu> <72E30C46-3045-4FBA-A464-C7120C3FECE2@gatech.edu> To: Dave Taht X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bismark-devel] about ready to do another build X-BeenThere: bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: BISMark related software development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 16:22:26 -0000 On May 21, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Srikanth Sundaresan = wrote: > I do not have a problem with it when we know the effective bandwidth. = My question is, what when do not? We cannot rely on volunteers to give = us reliable information on that. >=20 > I say we turn it *on only while testing*. That too, after we get an = idea about each user's bandwidth. THis is feature that, in its current = form needs to be tailored to each user. It is not a good idea to give = everyone a default setting - as I mentioned in my previous email, unless = we hit bulls eye (unlikely), it is either crippling, or useless. > =20 > It could potentially seriously downgrade user experience. >=20 >=20 > What part about 800ms latencies under load without QoS isn't about a = degraded user experience? If the cost of reduced upload speed, which could perhaps be as much as = 30%, (if the default is 340kbps - the DSL connection here in my B&B gets = up to 450k), can't be reduced, I certainly think that it's the higher = price to pay than reduced latency. - Srikanth