From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2a]) (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 B785C3CB36 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 03:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-vs1-xe2a.google.com with SMTP id n13so7934248vsk.4 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:06:06 -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=Cp6KLS4SXBZa6aSowe4TYZd1mXuuyB8IyFxmiVZThz0=; b=SZutAHUlFhS2PRiVYTTkUi/yIGGCPuUHKBeexGQf8ojwbpiNamHTZJUCzfMUwKKZRe fGcGDL15BBCCtWflskU7C3ehDtSw9UP0ClAg0mj+LMbCO3lBsI7FItMGqfMk3nE8HCge QW+HV5SnLJQJvJvvP0EIBaTK/CoOytqg2/Q0mgusX1KgDlRVQM93ImcRuTVc5rV04hsn kJy4swetapuM8Vz5pKYLzITwXpXmuiJruQwA+hic1Og5Uj5S1oojIwBvo15InyrYn09y glZH6tnnzbAiN6wg/gKFUPusbkqvRxFVZO0lAbCGlkZLRyUTJeF2zmWH6TIZLDzSQLGE 9yeg== 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=Cp6KLS4SXBZa6aSowe4TYZd1mXuuyB8IyFxmiVZThz0=; b=m25Prmp9PLUM02OHrD9+hBgQBZTiv7CihLjX6Pw8n9SEzFBoDHdMHtRsbOafcAM6n1 tStkZYjuVsK4oGysPMo/FDKE3H+SCWT2r8+Yq0ISbKk2p+5/6OGpZcW0GLpN02OuaGTL F5luik1mvKWvplFQimoDn9W6TQc+Nrj92scylenm+0r4fRD5V3sWLYLuLaI0DV7/xGIn j8dCiSAIabFYuH2YzfjmvYPJYyaSHmCY0sP0ncR+h4VQaxYIjDIB84DLc6Ts1CZfezd6 coartEJohSR8ndWZeUanwN0/PT0QTernH4B5w/YGTVusyt8GqBA5us6cxgAXRBnnNDau DuwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukf+FIUfZ52hdsFzUM/OM24+XKPiad6WBdsQ6tBRI6B9pP3EFhEw xFC3CYyRrytXfSij7PJjTCtx5jLOa3Y423JV16c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7pSlAHl0S5TtwhyjhfROgqagthx6g82m76wxPg/0KsbdG6C6HSPhDCX8moQB4IJ+sHkckUqh5/SDInV0bd2yI= X-Received: by 2002:a67:3659:: with SMTP id d86mr7400313vsa.17.1547798766353; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:06:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9D460DD5-67CF-4D38-AEBC-2284AD4BCFC3@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9D460DD5-67CF-4D38-AEBC-2284AD4BCFC3@gmail.com> From: Azin Neishaboori Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 03:05:55 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: contradictory WiFi flent results To: Jonathan Morton Cc: bloat-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a700b1057fb6fb91" 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: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:06:06 -0000 --000000000000a700b1057fb6fb91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Jonathan Thank you for your reply and insight. You are right about my setup. Just wondering if you have some insight into why I get significantly better download (not uplad) throughput by all other methods over cubic, including bbr. I mean, bbr on the sender side would mean I am supposed to get improvement on upload. Granted that my poor setup could distort any gains on upload by bbr, why do I get throughput gains on download? Thank you for your help Best Azin On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 1:27 AM Jonathan Morton wrote: > > On 18 Jan, 2019, at 6:25 am, Azin Neishaboori < > azin.neishaboori@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > My setup is pretty simple. I am on WiFi on my PC, and run flent on an > Ubuntu VM on a virtual machine, and connect to netperf.bufferbloat.net. > > From a technical point of view, that really isn't a "simple" setup. The > very fact that you're running Linux in a VM means it probably doesn't have > direct control of the wifi hardware - rather, the host OS does, and I very > much doubt that Windows is very intelligent about it. Then your path > involves an awful lot of Internet infrastructure on the way to the remote > server and back. > > So your simple prioritised ack is the solution that works, because it's > the only solution that actually does anything in your setup. > > - Jonathan Morton > > --000000000000a700b1057fb6fb91 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jonathan=C2=A0
Thank you for your reply and insight. You are right a= bout my setup.=C2=A0

Just wondering if you have so= me insight into why I get significantly better download (not uplad) through= put by all other methods over cubic, including bbr. I mean, bbr on the send= er side would mean I am supposed to get improvement on upload. Granted that= my poor setup could distort any gains on upload by bbr, why do I get throu= ghput gains on download?

Thank you for your help= =C2=A0
Best
Azin


On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 1:27 AM Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
=
> On 18 Jan, 2019, at 6:25 am, Azin= Neishaboori <azin.neishaboori@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My setup is pretty simple. I am on WiFi on my PC, and run flent on an = Ubuntu VM on a virtual machine, and connect to netperf.bufferbloat.net= .

>From a technical point of view, that really isn't a "simple" = setup.=C2=A0 The very fact that you're running Linux in a VM means it p= robably doesn't have direct control of the wifi hardware - rather, the = host OS does, and I very much doubt that Windows is very intelligent about = it.=C2=A0 Then your path involves an awful lot of Internet infrastructure o= n the way to the remote server and back.

So your simple prioritised ack is the solution that works, because it's= the only solution that actually does anything in your setup.

=C2=A0- Jonathan Morton

--000000000000a700b1057fb6fb91--