From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com (mail-pf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) (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 22BD13B25E for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:28:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id i85so8297552pfa.0 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 03:28:03 -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 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ca5GTWZiHA20b6o6tDXAR7nCh5ITaR70TTJTiagNaeg=; b=Y7/E9Jj6sNIsS1gt9ktVlLjYTxbKzbNtxNv8OjUR+oRGCS8tneBzZGid3kc+vIQ9fU XI61axTcXVkebsQLO1Yzzu02AsLn0dTiKfzojTOtV+qIjYIRBliHPb6RSg1mkorgpxQl 0kvUcEIIss1O6qC3TgD9eHDH1SNII8v4PXCoyS9jZMzZw6dyzXD94T/3XFGMEbQ+U+ls YvsTdzWqUclTck/IRa3zax+y7YFd+g0z4G40HYoYSckBO5w+qJPY46YgstgVwrRGAKZp +VeUkcUQZLF/KuXbvR5oq/ySrr1EGo/8tDuC6Xxr4/nA22fT8xipgRwUSfdoBaavSeWQ s8GQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ca5GTWZiHA20b6o6tDXAR7nCh5ITaR70TTJTiagNaeg=; b=VLAXcHpVAfJ9n4psb4ehS8eRzO9CfMZBXgB6w3WMbLG7Ar69WFYle49HrkbZ2GrT6M DGrKaGlxs65tRsNQ6Tss5FKB3wnFXFdmlUn8nu6getK9UB8+debq6rlXnMASSRmksKkC ug1Db7zaByEuyxW48PBFf/bdA1KnipeKzfcjhA1N2psToufzj+NVKMxNTXGydW0q4xEa 69fTfV9D79XTrsdD3biQ2HM5W8vd0BeWbJC0T9ArXZ9LrYaEgzuXyIGoWIaJCIDfajxG ES/XifkTrx09kxWbLmLu6vBxZorw8cM9g5Hyh9bSANY7x+EJjhMMVf/IaBT9cOV5Sn9D Ox4A== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngve+TRskoC9hrtwNQZDQo3glZ57LtiZKWNuYM+eX7PIjq/B0w5fv15cMYU3Obm5bLw== X-Received: by 10.98.93.83 with SMTP id r80mr254394pfb.17.1477045682242; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 03:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.29.162.254] ([172.29.162.254]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id j17sm3963643pfe.79.2016.10.21.03.28.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Oct 2016 03:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1477045681.7065.43.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> From: Eric Dumazet To: "Steinar H. Gunderson" Cc: bloat Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 03:28:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20161021084726.GA1913@sesse.net> References: <20161021084726.GA1913@sesse.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bloat] "BBR" TCP patches submitted to linux kernel X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 10:28:03 -0000 On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 10:47 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:04:37PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: > > I'm really looking forward to trying them out and reading the upcoming paper. > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/671069/ > > As a random data point, I tried a single flow from my main server in .no > to my backup server in .nl and compared CUBIC (with sch_fq) to BBR (naturally > also in sch_fq) on the sender side. The results were quite consistent across > runs: > > - BBR ramped up much quicker than CUBIC. > - BBR gave ~10% higher max speed than CUBIC (~680 Mbit/sec on a gigabit link). > - CUBIC wavered a bit up and down (~100 Mbit/sec) from the max; BBR stayed > put (perhaps 2 Mbit/sec difference) the entire time. > > http://pastebin.com/0XQaJvD9 for a typical log. I don't have any fancy > graphs, sorry :-) > > /* Steinar */ Hi Steinar Could you provide /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_rmem and /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_wmem values on your server ? What is the rtt between your two hosts ? Thanks