From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ey0-f171.google.com (mail-ey0-f171.google.com [209.85.215.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEBFE200614; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:22:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by eyb6 with SMTP id 6so5630683eyb.16 for ; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:22:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Pd/05bl2VnaWQja830jz5lZNEZORBAtYjIWpLQANIp0=; b=HJZcA2klKIlXVYZiccv7CfuvwlWMw/Q+ozgizRFHhXinyhTnQOt+uVDK36aCNcDaMe rzQkObC3mRSLqOr3ZNgoU9aLgrObmGVonKY9WaaHkAeLiNdfCbHyyNoLHbVaCs2Nv0ud 48TZ29TC4dmyZrbgGHIrOqgcPdGmLrI2TsuH0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.216.105 with SMTP id op9mr9422607obc.57.1320693756638; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:22:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.15.40 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:22:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 20:22:36 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: what I think is wrong with eBDP in debloat-testing From: Dave Taht To: bloat-devel , bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0447f0a638b79b04b129faaf X-BeenThere: bloat-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:22:39 -0000 --f46d0447f0a638b79b04b129faaf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable oops, correction: On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > > This is just plain wrong. In wireless-g the relationship between these > queues is far more sane than in -n. Aggregation doesn't currently happen = in > the VO(?) queue - thus in addition to having a larger transmit window, th= e > (CORRECTION!) VI queue can aggregate up to 64 packets. > > ^^^^ (vo and vi are very different, in other words) --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 FR Tel: 0638645374 http://www.bufferbloat.net --f46d0447f0a638b79b04b129faaf Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable oops, correction:



On Mon, Nov 7, = 2011 at 8:10 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:


This is just plain wrong. In wireless-g the relationship between these = queues is far more sane than in -n. Aggregation doesn't currently happe= n in the VO(?) queue - thus in addition to having a larger transmit window,= the (CORRECTION!) VI queue can aggregate up to 64 packets.


^^^^ (vo and vi are very different, in other word= s)


--
Dave T=E4ht
SKYPE: daveta= ht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
FR Tel: 0638645374
http://www.bufferbloat.net
--f46d0447f0a638b79b04b129faaf--