From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-x82b.google.com (mail-qt1-x82b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (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 757DC3B29E for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:07:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qt1-x82b.google.com with SMTP id v11so29388723qtc.2 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:07:43 -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; bh=kJxJB//G+1rLEaVTCpCN1jFjLlYWCew5/DUMZACLSbE=; b=eFrPux7cXhRNWNu6WMk19Pf3N5Hd3SJ/LwsDjNkDhF2Zv1/vAE5/evwOLtt2HmbToe H2wlkhR6M52LdUGWi182FIl2ughOP58zrY/JRSIsAWu5K7JjXW0xy5N/dAT2kUnpQ5rN zoITrn1qNqfeLJRwMSduAr3UMjS5BMwBcfUWwSpAnqWX79i16pV68w0qIInKCftU/vnt etw99rt4OTXwOI7TAlQG0LJrBO8dCsNQQC71oVLC26uqv6t+buXoTOs7LGqQpBzUp4RP r/Kf775Bzh1Pp4FhaiGy8D/KMXqs4xkbQjwDalpvQo0vHI5siw9SJrIbU/VnssKRHRV/ P8+Q== 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; bh=kJxJB//G+1rLEaVTCpCN1jFjLlYWCew5/DUMZACLSbE=; b=Qyxql2B6zk9bAijDFOSYv5hRRhJaBzV1oGUcGUbZh4sFAjIm2nUcUhbA44aOCbwHPw Fqd0mf8ZEg6BNrzuu5+M+5ezrblRlrmH+Tt2R8RNRDSXifQ4zvgWpWT8SNcS6hiJKq/s FQZuNr4a0/FacfdLSvTzY8My+R2DIKUQAasb+wNVK0LncMvlTGfk+P5Aet+kC/xdftY2 3APV8aH7PGJmPlrway6vM3ZgxwFsBDaVPyt1Z7LhlXLnVfisDNiTVQ3+ZbUBq/kXZ294 MTcIBneTf8JoWNOwjiRVu6iwCo+gGhdqmdtAET3ID4h36qTeqm8qzb7PBGpMczwyX9ZE mqUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfHvtZrNwJ37q6doAf70AbwEvyBcAcVV3nwEtQJ867kyJqOevQw LHACrqV+0A0hiq5SE+lA2Trt7CB9dSz+t/EP0YYjYw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4n8PG40ulHQAI3YDtrKNddoJlkim/fDNkg+20FHswMTJ7iSrlivj0fginWdRF0paj/Ni2ornJDD5TIQ3NUD5w= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5314:: with SMTP id t20mr32239464qtn.328.1548191263058; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:07:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:07:03 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BBR performance on LTE To: Azin Neishaboori Cc: bloat-devel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004770240580125e7f" 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 21:07:43 -0000 --0000000000004770240580125e7f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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. >From 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. --0000000000004770240580125e7f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am a huge believer in also seeing the baseline *.fl= ent.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 pl= ots) 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 mak= es 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 ~2= 00ms.=C2=A0 There really isn't much in this world that works particular= ly well with RTTs this large.
--0000000000004770240580125e7f--