From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk1-xa2d.google.com (mail-vk1-xa2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a2d]) (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 0BB4D3B29E for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:59:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-vk1-xa2d.google.com with SMTP id j23so14951vke.13 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:59:54 -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=8knATZcPOjK+JhxXkuRRVaLMAP4O8L2u+/v2rSeaTN0=; b=FjsJqClrdJ1uj3uzLba0uXmijLBCKvz64YI3eJN5rejnM0AiIr4Etc4d4W4YYi66OW ZUycyvQd7gCK/qmzEa3yLnOnwvGitbrZMjtrq20+wUuUhPSriInCGHh8QIFH7g8tMKjT GXs2ELn+eliuWUDXLqDlPkmNQPbPVwxLs+E1wW4DIz4ytQFcn5C6B4KaLX3aOwi9im5/ yJSgxMkTILejY0+WrH0V+bnxvBbLCtaCZxok8f+ZGlaS6YsJ499utxp39oatO6wIl3Ml R7je5wRnGLrmRA+BGSAy/AmwVRMxe086/l/80Swkt+1DfNNCpC9/96u9mVmVI1Ro4dXP Qnag== 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=8knATZcPOjK+JhxXkuRRVaLMAP4O8L2u+/v2rSeaTN0=; b=Xxq88OgjF5nlO9Op9kxUQ5IGK2imz3dmEOiE7P8brYBAeTTBWqL7HqxTunv1cBFS69 pnkBh1Fjkxa8UdNmRZ75szuqiftpynY/fho0I2jG9+JoX4+z9CiBUJ/s8x/BGqEp3sik bwLtkPxz931K8Em2iYv97K53EPS6asqPvY+lB9gasuDTmrZgr5wyJwkHD1H9pJqxgUzT 6wv53TB8hF17vOyg1egiQkjizpIqrhBbKcvPem/iLMDv8sN10YctIzCwAPhR+W79bE6/ ozWVatRa4zCACVMC5ag2bFDjY7bVcy7fuNmpoD+TlAiCVWcIGyYZjeZ6KYlQL0S41XVL 5u4A== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfYUMUpLAEPXQHeWwk250N9Lv7qlHYhXLonZJjCvn7myc2JNFut fY8V1kQwVIE9dBb+PRTz/1jSRJcjjub94SXasyE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5d8uyW5QIA54B/ZNS80s8/F1McZs99dWOfeU3r5hXzBb3aYod9I5AGMysSqRzZuLu+U1GQZeJ+PgXPPm7EGnk= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:8b48:: with SMTP id n69mr13669844vkd.12.1548194394503; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:59:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Azin Neishaboori Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:59:43 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BBR performance on LTE To: Dave Taht Cc: bloat-devel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed7d5905801318c4" 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 21:59:55 -0000 --000000000000ed7d5905801318c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 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. > --000000000000ed7d5905801318c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Dave

Thank you for responding. I will email you the= *.flent.gz files tomorrow and share the other plots here. Thank you for th= e advice to run tcp_nup and down tests. I can do those and report as well t= omorrow.


Regarding your comment on = the 200ms delay, well, the bbr paper published by the google team does ment= ion the wifi and cellular LTE links. And the LTE links do have as documente= d higher delays, even higher under mobility. Yet the bbr paper claims that = bbr works well for them as well.=C2=A0 But the LTE test results I have got = so far do not seem very promising.=C2=A0

Thank you= again for taking time and responding to my email. Tomorrow I will send fur= ther info as mentioned above.

Best
Azin= =C2=A0

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at = 4:07 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmai= l.com> wrote:
I am= a huge believer in also seeing the baseline *.flent.gz files and other plo= ts you can get via the flent-gui... if you could post them somewhere or sen= d to me privately? Two examples are obtaining the baseline RTT,
a= nd it would be my hope, over time, that BBR would have found the baseline R= TT later in the test (the up or down bandwidth plots) than is shown by thes= e 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 flo= ws start up one at a time, and a better string of basic tests would be to u= se tcp_nup or tcp_ndown.

From squinting... It= looks like the *baseline* RTT in this test is ~200ms.=C2=A0 There really i= sn't much in this world that works particularly well with RTTs this lar= ge.
--000000000000ed7d5905801318c4--