From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-33-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-049-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.49]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A19D2E0403 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:34:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-31-ewr.mailhop.org (scan-31-ewr.local [10.0.141.237]) by mail-33-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359F56F7700 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:33:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 15.216.28.34 Received: from g1t0027.austin.hp.com (g1t0027.austin.hp.com [15.216.28.34]) by mail-33-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0686F7495 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:33:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from g1t0038.austin.hp.com (g1t0038.austin.hp.com [16.236.32.44]) by g1t0027.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C383824F; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:33:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [16.89.244.213] (tardy.cup.hp.com [16.89.244.213]) by g1t0038.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588CB30186; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:33:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: debloat-testing kernel git tree From: Rick Jones To: Tianji Li In-Reply-To: <4D6FEFD4.9010608@nuim.ie> References: <20110225222210.GA3618@tuxdriver.com> <87fwr9jxya.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org> <8739n9ii7z.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org> <87tyfph2az.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org> <1299176168.2157.14.camel@tardy> <4D6FEFD4.9010608@nuim.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:33:43 -0800 Message-ID: <1299191623.2157.62.camel@tardy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bloat-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sedat.dilek@gmail.com X-BeenThere: bloat-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: rick.jones2@hp.com List-Id: "Developers working on AQM, device drivers, and networking stacks" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:34:47 -0000 On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 13:45 -0600, Tianji Li wrote: > > On 03/03/2011 12:16 PM, Rick Jones wrote: > >> For wireless routers and cable home gateways especially, this research > >> shows that the total un-managed buffers in your system should be less > >> than 32. > > > > Would it be a good thing to start describing these queues not so much in > > terms of packets but in terms of delay (or bandwidth X delay)? > > > > The unit of bandwidth is something like Mbps, that of delay can be > second, so bandwidth X delay --> Mb, which is the unit of packet size. > So both packets and delay should have the same effect for sizing buffers. Yet, not all packets are not created equal - in size. So, 42, 150 byte packets queued is not the same as 42, 1500 byte packets. However, 10, 1500 byte packets is the same as 100, 150 byte packets. Had you said something like MB and delay should have the same effect I would have agreed with you :) rick jones