From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-x736.google.com (mail-qk1-x736.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) (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 538473B29E; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:01:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk1-x736.google.com with SMTP id y16so57208qki.7; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:01:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TKLlDi4TMfrPY/yrg5UWLBq016oIHuFo+xAvmYFDOGA=; b=Y5mIlHIt7rG7RvJvq20sMpUGEM26/UUOBE15ztXK4yMwrk5knIl8d96dEh/jcrM5HU JQnJJn9T3PRMZXNP8J4h63gTCgoH2RJISIG7buFYIqfPOJu9h1WW1KxPc7AYW8b2BN6N RSJeWKoNKv7AcBqPHheOPiyLCmY2JhPKoXtz9HBDgrfJJwYPTOMhnZNoyTJXhMmVUYt7 9pGkPU92RH6TRfhFt0NPn32aB3+ghshxOccwrxJZixY3UGn82JrQHjW3+IjG+q5dK9Xm 9DJAys9iItbKUzCXVzSRMVUZckd2eWSiuJPYepQCmmfZGR6iR4IDwC1LHgw473U7blec QzKw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TKLlDi4TMfrPY/yrg5UWLBq016oIHuFo+xAvmYFDOGA=; b=UKdBgRlJQD+j/a0WnjjCyMCIbvFp61orAQalWTShQBqf+lN5Mwdy3x3UfI+KFjR0xV lrhmpqnv5s6yjeDerNndCLeYXW7F4tvyY6P4NKuNyMKwbyoM/ZZpnIY8x/+h6xi1b51+ haVQzSu56+pOyKHqJ3zIf5kFg1yTWTyN2APWLyD1ABzbYtbQq4O1oI0YmeWYXE/BfqeS i4egp3uNoLY/cR3HdxWfC2Zmzn4RKoSKOTjBCh8B7LL77VvtDVC1y0vr0yAZT9fULl3F th6s/7g1x04lEY82jitV5yx3Z/qvRlXLiOOvuilzI91c5xRkVBLQ950x3IRlyfUk/GEB cVvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdskCezOIqGelthN94ixvX/hlFUF6QLhlOGZQ9/Oy5M11rWViJG JGao++2jkmR8jhs79WwHaNkgMjYQAbM5z4pPAyg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4imtGNuKpJva5xVQDvqONsbpEwhKtYyQ0GjBtxolZZ6rvJddp7m6A1dAmyTvCJGK+6GVMc9fTS9PCCT92WZyo= X-Received: by 2002:ae9:ee02:: with SMTP id i2mr29283483qkg.179.1548194497731; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:01:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:00:54 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BBR performance on LTE To: Azin Neishaboori Cc: bloat-devel , bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 22:01:38 -0000 btw, I didn't even remember we had a bloat-devel mailing list. please use bloat instead On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:59 PM Azin Neishaboori wrote: > > Dear Dave > > 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. > > > 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 LT= E links do have as documented higher delays, even higher under mobility. Ye= t the bbr paper claims that bbr works well for them as well. But the LTE t= est results I have got so far do not seem very promising. > > Thank you again for taking time and responding to my email. Tomorrow I wi= ll send further info as mentioned above. > > Best > Azin > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dave Taht wrote: >> >> I am a huge believer in also seeing the baseline *.flent.gz files and ot= her 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 baseli= ne 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 show= ing 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. >> >> From squinting... It looks like the *baseline* RTT in this test is ~200m= s. There really isn't much in this world that works particularly well with= RTTs this large. --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740