From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (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 6916321F20C for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbhj9 with SMTP id hj9so46039678igb.1 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:44:30 -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=zZRrrMSAOLqhMSQwtpGdoSUlfVctzLAe6axi03pPhbE=; b=pR5jaBd1KoPXBErwJMtlVRwBmncTxJIdBTvQnetiXjVBqZHi48QO+M7x1ADguVKTpQ xG7RnxRrHAGqkJhAUQU4nAWl7C92ijLnhfEVQnvQ7pZdWo8bYvO/KtYoMXHDUz7hUFJm w9u3Rb5GUeZEDlZl/LEJ5x60eYHu4ix61kcHGAUunKCayrElQyWxj1VeeXwKcIQ737X9 Fhu0W+JjVf/fsE1K5eLy/NT+2ABH5S+/wYlqkRYhW9pCS1yaT7wLpFJnUoFnFYOc93cZ 5aHmCU0VbrWhJ/e7CSrJl6WjVsqdNbbmeH6MJAIGnRK1i8HOjad2vTZoOEWF3rBI2DvA wrWw== X-Received: by 10.50.108.115 with SMTP id hj19mr5460698igb.34.1429717470352; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.26.55.207] ([172.26.55.207]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z3sm3559031igr.7.2015.04.22.08.44.29 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1429717468.18561.90.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> From: Eric Dumazet To: luca.muscariello@orange.com Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:44:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: <25065_1429716388_5537BDA4_25065_2328_1_63pyislbvtjf653k3qt8gw2c.1429715929544@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> ,<1429710657.18561.68.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <25065_1429716388_5537BDA4_25065_2328_1_63pyislbvtjf653k3qt8gw2c.1429715929544@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 15:44:59 -0000 On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 15:26 +0000, luca.muscariello@orange.com wrote: > Do I need to read this as all Google servers == all servers :) > > Read again what I wrote. Don't play with my words. > BTW if a paced flow from Google shares a bloated buffer with a non > paced flow from a non Google server, doesn't this turn out to be a > performance penalty for the paced flow? > > What do you think ? Do you think Google would still use sch_fq if this was a potential problem ? > fq_codel gives incentives to do pacing but if it's not deployed what's > the performance gain of using pacing? 1) fq_codel has nothing to do with pacing. 2) sch_fq doesn't depend on fq_codel or codel being used anywhere. It seems you are quite confused, and unfortunately I wont take time to explain anything. Run experiments, then draw your own conclusions.