From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from deliverator6.gatech.edu (deliverator6.gatech.edu [130.207.160.71]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18156200648 for ; Sat, 21 May 2011 09:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720A620C0DB; Sat, 21 May 2011 13:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from deliverator6.gatech.edu by deliverator6.gatech.edu with queue id 1743679-5; Sat, 21 May 2011 17:07:31 GMT Received: from mail3.gatech.edu (mail3.gatech.edu [130.207.185.163]) by deliverator6.gatech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E55E820C0DB; Sat, 21 May 2011 13:07:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.0.200] (196-215-46-233.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.215.46.233]) (Authenticated sender: ssundaresan3) by mail3.gatech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE166149245; Sat, 21 May 2011 13:07:28 -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 19:07:22 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <9EFCAA58-92E8-45FD-9BE4-F213564264E6@cc.gatech.edu> <5C1FCBFC-B007-4B01-A7BA-6CCD5523DC34@cc.gatech.edu> <72E30C46-3045-4FBA-A464-C7120C3FECE2@gatech.edu> <58F7BFB9-8382-427A-986C-5FAFB90A8DD4@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 16:55:51 -0000 >=20 >=20 > I would urge you strongly to do more realistic testing, with more real = users using the network... >=20 > ...before making that call. I am assuming you are unleashing these = devices on real users? with more than one person on the network? >=20 > RTT times will probably get even worse than 800ms with multiple = streams running. I have not tested that, I'll get to it. It is unlikely that the RTT will be worse than what they are = experiencing now - the size of the pipes mean that the buffers are = easily filled with a single TCP connection. But applying the wrong = default will have an impact, which could well be noticable.=20 >=20 > Certainly chats with network operators and cybercafe operators down = there will also prove fruitful.=20 >=20 > If you could exit the hotel and see if you can obtain some information = from the real world around you down there about those kinds of usage, = (or non-usage) of QoS techniques on their systems... >=20 > you might get some really good coffee and meet some interesting = people. I agree that real information will be good. We don't really have it, = which is why setting a default (based on 2 data points) is not good. = The qos-scripts should be tailored to each user.