From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from alpha.coverfire.com (alpha.coverfire.com [69.41.199.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1139200373 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:46:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.12] (ANice-752-1-7-126.w90-37.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.37.170.126]) (authenticated bits=0) by alpha.coverfire.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0DLjuJ2009868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:45:58 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=coverfire.com; s=alpha2011102501; t=1326491159; bh=yBqdZVFCDMn/n2Bwg0U1ysyqt1JRtWs1MmSSQBcuyeY=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version; b=d4eIVl137NKC4zgwTYt7wKzpE1DboHNpbKu7jJSqu72XfIOWm7Eot/imweVLLbUnq tPqAz4fno7gaF9Ymhit6+Bfnbsw9HfxLh4UREbmIrAhoXZ028fpTdhDC/KZrsIZjUZ 1O62YaMGLLkkQjQZhaVDBlWT/kShQtf+4GJI5SgM= Message-ID: <1326491155.8846.9.camel@neptune> From: Dan Siemon To: Dave Taht , bloat Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:45:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1325481751.2526.23.camel@edumazet-laptop> <4F046F7B.6030905@freedesktop.org> <201201051753.q05Hqx78012678@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2 (3.2.2-1.fc16) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,PLING_QUERY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on alpha.coverfire.com Subject: Re: [Bloat] What is fairness, anyway? was: Re: finally... winning on wired! 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: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:46:05 -0000 On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 01:40 +0100, Dave Taht wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > > > > In a nutshell, bit-rate equality, where each of N active users gets 1/N of > > the bit-rate, was found to be extremely _unfair_ when the activity of > > different users is widely different. For example: > > * 5 light users all active 1% of the time get close to 100% of a shared link > > whenever they need it. > > * However, if instead 2 of these users are active 100% of the time, FQ gives > > the other three light users only 33% of the link whenever they are active. > > * That's pretty rubbish for a solution that claims to isolate each user from > > the excesses of others. > > Without AQM or FQ, we have a situation where one stream from one user > at a site, can eat more than 100% of the bandwidth. > > 1/u would be a substantial improvement! Indeed I've found this to be the case. I've been using a Linux tc configuration in both the upstream and downstream which is designed to protect each host's bandwidth share and within that provide three traffic classes with flow fairness (script link below). With this configuration I no longer have to worry about other network traffic interfering with a decent web experience or VoIP call. http://git.coverfire.com/?p=linux-qos-scripts.git;a=blob;f=src-3tos.sh;hb=HEAD -- Key ID: 133F6C3E Key Fingerprint: 72B3 AF04 EFFE 65E4 46FF 7E5B 9297 18BA 133F 6C3E