From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CFB93B29E for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:27:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from hms-beagle2.lan ([77.12.205.55]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MBWTO-1gtGK8268k-00ATTc; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:27:26 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Subject: Re: [Bloat] BBR performance on LTE From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:27:25 +0100 Cc: bloat-devel Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4EACD340-2655-4070-A226-507EB1A17164@gmx.de> References: To: =?utf-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:R2fmOW9k5tM0eVUdbfp6ViSgjAUGL/iGG/5oci4zPkflhvcBqVg P8KVMwjbBavp4kbQupK8i8bo8Ax33LIo5fjkSw4V5c7ZNznVjfwRNw6SFmRE7W6x7JmR+is Zb2uU0KnjgNVEtUB746s3+n1XpYhz9h3ll11znR0osM1zdcxg8B9vderCSZ8PNL5f6Jo/dq SxdvqrBDpzD4LOL7+C23Q== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:QfneZHjr0JA=:ZWPL0BDXWcfLhNfpeh0b7V P7S3XlR/7Q6dieW4maUPAln9V/p/YrVYGKZMWnspsPgzezO1NB+ZCkrlNRg3VPfMM1Ndpbghv /JyBpoFC5y6RlYT9vs39IR8mmZ8m9xIgprw5YflbaGpFDqhwh7yJ5B0/j2UcyeHK9drtSOXeY F11i3esnUF8bSPtRTfYWhVirtj8H/MZekelFKfMEcWBYJr3ORzAeRt6iu/QhVElxLkWHnM5eK ZoI4tSQYKc4tvkLiSV3sa39g0ryUm3V5wAlsgARj1Bi8u0AxxJ5sCm1k5Ow4Zz99zp4lZOXiT k+SRQAHkE4tjc3qqdWqgABMmqn3vD+QzeviLDTB7w/O0gpBBGVDrWvOUkIQHLpcPl8yLCLFOq QYXwlNVsi/GJI8dUOSpaAwOdihjrOMYlg4t7wkHifg7AZhHurcJqzh2rzk5bQYhv5KUZHM54V qFe7ZYEIX+eJrXVvBvDIvQFGWKl6yMAQcL6IZCBbiM/uIpd3wKamcMflpErNfneB3AAIDi9p0 xj3+l46KSZqoAEwL3pOx0qXoWRsg1G/xQ+9yOLg9X06BWwA7zCKELoqmrSwxDlB0DRjoffskS 1wVre+KL9IXSq2Ry+ZQS+EbpZBaa3zW/cEFP8ZR3lVj2c89EqVPt9O0Y8NCPGkzZIIMjhTyal WhFY9UcdowaC0wsr75iNUM7d/nZX96JHi5cB0rMtI6cI5y8ozFRENkGjiUjLjaZhNyuitIw08 bEkfgmVpX0P1Mx/HQrORNH9kPORNAfF4QuK3FcO1X3h+gU77GS/EoqyJisYUUmLQleLYMu51f LBgBoW7f6lZgOvy1AVhsiSjAWGJbpObwNanLv7wbfkCmXnVyLQnlksRkgOHQXpgOliYD+Z3rf ebfZfQbGA/c/xPg3oQ6fy8zx4X3id9zCtIwTii0l2WBTvKNA+Y8gNHqgnFfwzAH72a05looZ4 Prk6qOPMWjg== X-BeenThere: bloat-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 22:27:28 -0000 > On Jan 22, 2019, at 23:00, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 > btw, I didn't even remember we had a bloat-devel mailing list. please > use bloat instead And I thought we use the bloat list to talk about bloat and how to get = rid of it and use bloat-devel exclusively to talk about developing = bloat. I took the radio silence as indicator, that we agree that there = is sufficient "high-quality" bloat around that further development was = not required yet... ;) >=20 > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:59 PM Azin Neishaboori > wrote: >>=20 >> Dear Dave >>=20 >> Thank you for responding. I will email you the *.flent.gz files = tomorrow and share the other plots here. Thank you for the advice to run = tcp_nup and down tests. I can do those and report as well tomorrow. >>=20 >>=20 >> Regarding your comment on the 200ms delay, well, the bbr paper = published by the google team does mention the wifi and cellular LTE = links. And the LTE links do have as documented higher delays, even = higher under mobility. Yet the bbr paper claims that bbr works well for = them as well. But the LTE test results I have got so far do not seem = very promising. >>=20 >> Thank you again for taking time and responding to my email. Tomorrow = I will send further info as mentioned above. >>=20 >> Best >> Azin >>=20 >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dave Taht = wrote: >>>=20 >>> I am a huge believer in also seeing the baseline *.flent.gz files = and other plots you can get via the flent-gui... if you could post them = somewhere or send to me privately? Two examples are obtaining the = baseline RTT, >>> and it would be my hope, over time, that BBR would have found the = baseline RTT later in the test (the up or down bandwidth plots) than is = shown by these summary plots. Also as much as I love the rrul tests for = quickly showing the characteristics of a link under load, BBR makes the = assumption that flows start up one at a time, and a better string of = basic tests would be to use tcp_nup or tcp_ndown. >>>=20 >>> =46rom squinting... It looks like the *baseline* RTT in this test is = ~200ms. There really isn't much in this world that works particularly = well with RTTs this large. >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 >=20 > Dave T=C3=A4ht > CTO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-831-205-9740 > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat