From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3243021F2CC for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so104661513igb.0 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:50:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :content-type:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mdxfx0WERKkUE95bPrj3nfIqVe0geQfEmwWQvTXgy5g=; b=LEP05bltCYP+dsWHF+wgI8fNUXbHNv7+i5+oi6T599NjuRdTyzvquonljOcBSaGvcL 7iJ2t5KBsT0KxVQLOXn6SVaKXyLXaMCdeeI/DC7TjNNcAp7a4qhaj+5G+h1WsCgijGDM AP50R71Ene7Ly+8T0VJVOuz4AkWGFMnU12PoGYmhfAi+YWvyfkOnM+lD/UaPJvmr/eD7 MV/kB4uYIppYiKDs5UuBBtBlnO3cc/zU/yxWZ86QCOsCo8Ua/kqCv6TYRqr/iC+CoC77 48mwkDX3HZd16LbZxonhYzmMBYHn9gdREXUjuJuFHAn2SGd/lUyOizLwyU1z5iQCqOAM tAkA== X-Received: by 10.50.78.199 with SMTP id d7mr4728524igx.18.1429710659179; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.26.55.207] ([172.26.55.207]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d10sm10190909igo.0.2015.04.22.06.50.57 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1429710657.18561.68.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> From: Eric Dumazet To: luca.muscariello@orange.com Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:50:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: <12383_1429692679_55376107_12383_9099_1_p7gmr0psut68sen0sao8o4lp.1429692550899@email.android.com> References: <75C1DDFF-FBD2-4825-A167-92DFCF6A7713@gmail.com> <8AD4493E-EA21-496D-923D-B4257B078A1C@gmx.de> <8E4F61CA-4274-4414-B4C0-F582167D66D6@gmx.de> <2C987A4B-7459-43C1-A49C-72F600776B00@gmail.com> <14cd9e74e48.27f7.e972a4f4d859b00521b2b659602cb2f9@superduper.net> <20150422040453.GB36239@sesse.net> ,<1429676935.18561.42.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <12383_1429692679_55376107_12383_9099_1_p7gmr0psut68sen0sao8o4lp.1429692550899@email.android.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] DSLReports Speed Test has latency measurement built-in 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: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:51:32 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:51:32 -0000 On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 08:51 +0000, luca.muscariello@orange.com wrote: > cons: large BDP in general would be negatively affected. > A Gbps access vs a DSL access to the same server would require very > different tuning. > Yep. This is what I mentioned with 'long rtt'. This was relative to BDP. > > sch_fq would probably make the whole thing less of a problem. > But running it in a VM does not sound a good idea and would not > reflect usual servers setting BTW > No idea why it should mater. Have you got some experimental data ? You know, 'usual servers' used to run pfifo_fast, they now run sch_fq. (All Google fleet at least) So this kind of argument sounds not based on experiments.