From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-04-iad.dyndns.com (mxout-034-iad.mailhop.org [216.146.32.34]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0FCF2E0101 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:02:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-01-iad.mailhop.org (scan-01-iad.local [10.150.0.206]) by mail-04-iad.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC7383320C for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:01:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 () X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 24.71.223.10 Received: from idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca (idcmail-mo1so.shaw.ca [24.71.223.10]) by mail-04-iad.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97F4832ED1 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:01:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pd3ml2so-ssvc.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.141.138]) by pd3mo1so-svcs.prod.shaw.ca with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2011 09:01:51 -0700 X-Cloudmark-SP-Filtered: true X-Cloudmark-SP-Result: v=1.1 cv=p1E0FbcuapThhG57xomuiJdXW/Q5N45ug4AOcQEGw+Q= c=1 sm=1 a=m5XoB2adekIA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=wPDyFdB5xvgA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=9nlebEN0lvQ0tDjrQmGQsw==:17 a=3dZX8JWgAAAA:8 a=b7SLfKwVAAAA:8 a=-SAnk2QLNsTpBjqUZNMA:9 a=k5EeqEEBlYnM0AW71R4A:7 a=CLv3Rp3NXVyrS_Fhw4qlxsDe9jwA:4 a=Fw8iwiUKpeAA:10 a=Ls3g0dwzjE0A:10 a=TphoKWqS9HQA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 Received: from unknown (HELO amd.pacdat.net) ([96.48.77.141]) by pd3ml2so-dmz.prod.shaw.ca with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2011 09:01:51 -0700 Received: from localhost ([::1]) by amd.pacdat.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PuS1H-0003jN-1J; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:01:51 -0800 From: richard To: Steve Bauer In-Reply-To: References: <1298930176.15371.51.camel@amd.pacdat.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:01:50 -0800 Message-Id: <1298995310.15371.77.camel@amd.pacdat.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_bar: -- Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Usage Based Billing - It's All About Perceived Congestion X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:02:34 -0000 Hi Steve thanks for the feedback. I guess it comes down to how the various modems achieve "burst" throughput - by buffering and draining, or by actually increasing the allocation of bandwidth for a time. I'll remove that piece until I have more information. richard On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 08:57 -0500, Steve Bauer wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:56 PM, richard wrote: > > The result is: > > http://digital-rag.com/article.php/All-About-Perceived-Congestion-UBB > > It's aimed at the public and non-technical so allow me a few missing > > things in the explanations :) > > Hi Richard, > > You recommended to your readers: > > "You want to bug your ISP to turn off any/all "helper" buffering in > your modem that purports to "increase upload speed for short periods" > since this is buffering and part of the problem." > > I am assuming you intended that to apply to Powerboost. Based upon my > understanding of various implementations of Powerboost, > turning it off would *not* help with latency under load simply > because the buffer sizes are fixed in today's cable modems. > > So these issues are orthogonal. There are certainly > problems, but turning off Powerboost isn't part of the fix. > > Indeed, turning Powerboost off could make the problem worse. A > buffer that would otherwise have drained if Powerboost was in effect, > would be more likely to have a queue of packets sitting in it adding > additional latency to later arrivals. Again, my key assumption is > that disabling Powerboost simply doesn't change the buffer size. > > As always, happy to be proved wrong. :-) > > Thanks, > Steve Bauer > MIT -- Richard C. Pitt Pacific Data Capture rcpitt@pacdat.net 604-644-9265 http://digital-rag.com www.pacdat.net PGP Fingerprint: FCEF 167D 151B 64C4 3333 57F0 4F18 AF98 9F59 DD73