From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from deliverator5.gatech.edu (deliverator5.gatech.edu [130.207.165.165]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC592004FF for ; Sat, 21 May 2011 01:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8C91801CB; Sat, 21 May 2011 04:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from deliverator5.gatech.edu by deliverator5.gatech.edu with queue id 1923109-4; Sat, 21 May 2011 08:18:47 GMT Received: from mail5.gatech.edu (mail5.gatech.edu [130.207.185.165]) by deliverator5.gatech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABAEA1820EB; Sat, 21 May 2011 04:18:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.0.100] (196-215-46-233.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.215.46.233]) (Authenticated sender: ssundaresan3) by mail5.gatech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC83320008; Sat, 21 May 2011 04:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Srikanth Sundaresan In-Reply-To: <5C1FCBFC-B007-4B01-A7BA-6CCD5523DC34@cc.gatech.edu> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 10:12:45 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <72E30C46-3045-4FBA-A464-C7120C3FECE2@gatech.edu> References: <9EFCAA58-92E8-45FD-9BE4-F213564264E6@cc.gatech.edu> <5C1FCBFC-B007-4B01-A7BA-6CCD5523DC34@cc.gatech.edu> To: Nick Feamster 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 08:07:18 -0000 My concern about QoS is that without knowing the exact connection, it's = pretty useless. If the QoS settings are less ( I think it's set to 128K = up, I see 500k up in my hotel), then it's overly restrictive. If it's = set to more than that, then it's useless as it never is activated. With = long last mile DSL lines, which I think is the default here, it's = impossible to predict the actual connection parameters, even if we knew = the exact SLA. It's easy enough to disable QoS during testing. More important than our = testing is to make sure we don't cripple the internet connection. Unless = the QoS setting is adaptive, I am opposed to turning it on unless we = test it in a more controlled setting first. - Srikanth On May 21, 2011, at 12:12 AM, Nick Feamster wrote: > Srikanth, Walter --- please chime in. >=20 > Dave has a point here about the possibility of stopping QoS during = testing. >=20 > Thoughts? >=20 > -Nick >=20 >=20 > On May 21, 2011, at 12:11 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 >> And your customer experience will be poor, and you will be measuring = tcp/ip malfunctioning rather than working properly.=20 >>=20 >> How hard would it be for your scripts, when doing bandwidth testing, = to do a=20 >>=20 >> /etc/init.d/qos stop >> do the test >> /etc/init.d/qos start >>=20 >> When do they do bandwidth testing? What script does it? >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Bismark-devel mailing list > Bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-devel