From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2e]) (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 9BF823B29E; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:31:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-vk1-xa2e.google.com with SMTP id b18so50614vke.2; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:55 -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=wWGnbiPL7vHsO40hZac1sL3vXjXxUaGjy6zBrNkK7wQ=; b=M4/RqMMIPjQW7CD0m/gsx6xvm2CqbWqARjzGe62QJVzcKJ7L98Zh1HDpUKQqaqS4Ss RVQ9OoY8LMRK0aXsMkRN289ucEzdAaXjeYXYQOlXrrSXbkCIqyl++OH4QHrDsA3/cL4C yyMtyMDqtQbl9Jf6nyEDxR3GD8c6Zl9vAkuaYLQf5bf6/D7d9phs78v8NTciTxDDyALo HvP7ldAvVCbDvubCbObMNeaqDLp1cU+l1HGd06cvsK79H1ItUCSu2SESp1Lo7n0dpd1H sm1+uYFYBHMji9XQpYQ2uZElpD2JYORuJycnR3qptRBZ5VVUOIdtTlQ7EtS3CdN3zWew YPAQ== 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=wWGnbiPL7vHsO40hZac1sL3vXjXxUaGjy6zBrNkK7wQ=; b=BzA7vQDZCC1B9qt6Hu/KvkoRpOF2ai7exJz4ZPGtl92frQ/bsWfMCUPn9Ta/JMwJXy /wvKX99aa4TqqtXkSwD04pdCghtpKh30fjow/JjzK1dEyoZFwc38+gqcMK0FAPorJH3v 8+muIqmed7fHKZQh6Kwg2dzLqX35UBSmIBxl60oWEzQn57C4R2Yw33onTufHkXrdL6IC 0rSC8NaxVhYw0ee/EplWTMp2b8Z76skgP87HnAdTQKySN7DlkOgcxpXgJSKD3Lm6tp+3 QzoOhl/T4ckgqYKaZRzLjISSsv4GvuZ7GoDJPdX2JhLE9xMlgzFDc8fz1a9wYTBtZKwj eYxg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUuke1mk2QYqK3uTAY4Jxgri4FUUjSpfYZSNvXky0z88mYcNDsIidB 10An1ZYDlR6yM/yWyWapjLj4xshqdjhQfQxxG8U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4nyyTZV2uPzJP8/BJcUkY5TGaUcV9HvlVniKShS/wACIJm7pu5/48i886aQSl6XR5Pb22Ia6iWrQDZ9gvgXws= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:27d7:: with SMTP id n206mr14266410vkn.0.1548196315243; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:31:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4EACD340-2655-4070-A226-507EB1A17164@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4EACD340-2655-4070-A226-507EB1A17164@gmx.de> From: Azin Neishaboori Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:31:45 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Bloat] BBR performance on LTE To: Sebastian Moeller , bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= , bloat-devel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000069ad9b0580138b70" 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 22:31:55 -0000 --00000000000069ad9b0580138b70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pardon my ignorance. As a late comer, I did not know the rules of the two mailing lists. In fact I did not even know the bloat mailing list existed. Only knew of the bloat-devel. I will use the former in the future. Thanks again Best Azin On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:27 PM Sebastian Moeller wrote: > > > > On Jan 22, 2019, at 23:00, Dave Taht wrote: > > > > 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 ri= d > 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 sufficie= nt > "high-quality" bloat around that further development was not required > yet... ;) > > > > > > > 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 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. > >> > >> Thank you again for taking time and responding to my email. Tomorrow I > will 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 > 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 baselin= e > 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 basi= c > 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 we= ll > with RTTs this large. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat-devel mailing list > Bloat-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat-devel > --00000000000069ad9b0580138b70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Pardon my ignorance. As a late comer, I did not know the r= ules of the two mailing lists. In fact I did not even know the bloat mailin= g list existed. Only knew of the bloat-devel. I will use the former in the = future.

Thanks again
Best
Azin
=

= On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:27 PM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:


> On Jan 22, 2019, at 23:00, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> btw, I didn't even remember we had a bloat-devel mailing list. ple= ase
> 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 too= k the radio silence as indicator, that we agree that there is sufficient &q= uot;high-quality" bloat around that further development was not requir= ed yet... ;)



>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:59 PM Azin Neishaboori
> <az= in.neishaboori@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Dave
>>
>> Thank you for responding. I will email you the *.flent.gz files to= morrow 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 pub= lished 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 mobil= ity. Yet the bbr paper claims that bbr works well for them as well.=C2=A0 B= ut the LTE test results I have got so far do not seem very promising.
>>
>> Thank you again for taking time and responding to my email. Tomorr= ow I will send further info as mentioned above.
>>
>> Best
>> Azin
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am a huge believer in also seeing the baseline *.flent.gz fi= les 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 qu= ickly showing the characteristics of a link under load, BBR makes the assum= ption 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 tes= t is ~200ms.=C2=A0 There really isn't much in this world that works par= ticularly well with RTTs this large.
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
Bloat-devel mailing list
Bloa= t-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat-devel=
--00000000000069ad9b0580138b70--