From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-x241.google.com (mail-pf0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::241]) (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 C7F853B25E for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x241.google.com with SMTP id s8so3171941pfj.2 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:31:22 -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=//v8nRK4Ay8F2Q9OxKF1z1XWO44B0yr7aE4TjKKS53Q=; b=YU+HxEPRrmTfKUSc1Q+gszFmEIdE9PXaCAUOsFUNVsWO0AqcPf27MUdIO9y5rbfwB/ sjMDjqa6Uk0fe05dTlh1c1shRRZ5qjOTs64/vfasJMuvsQFETl4mgM2fp1BjzT6lIz2U bOyPpCwfe/csuJ2+OxZyZw6HAl6/9wxZEpAb8oOmviyjCiuvB6AWp1TXbeAsTu0vz0Y7 qwVUvz3oixgqbYzGgcAb5igtYJWWXr3JQf9Asa/CJHMs+nz8PpsYD0HoztJAOHTbn0ni LeffxxGeykTfdOFXmbVPhsUvtg7sw7jqVRio9iQKw23IELYkc7PMtWIaSRX3ZZY4zNvS BqUA== 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=//v8nRK4Ay8F2Q9OxKF1z1XWO44B0yr7aE4TjKKS53Q=; b=RvrXzXYv80JegGXW1y/zJpCtZEz39LgCjsLKleZfQW1VKuctuoSOLKpi1LNKoqLMO5 GPYIxes+DHanOzZ6JjYKtq8+P7LlotAQEjpvXDi2kPleA/mG/cDJDJDQ/HbbTU0Qy/wn yG7E46qVEkhmZWa7fBR0EV0Lh6S5Ei7sGs2eAyWXIzkn3+l9dztGFWDt3HEytI3X9VcT uFkPgiG0Nr7BCP2fN9uYCfnsJvzcr+rIBIvh7J9QNn7yO29Fbq9/Z4f+hWKToNS0G809 oaaz80kCRgUr3ME9NbaD93izfxODf6XZA1vlzQ6N/aJ2SJKHLAQl2sv5DI3pB8Gtdksz nm0w== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfDtvhqlzohQtFoIC/mX1sYtRsaUNXm8fCdo36XuNfFDIQjzgA+Ms7e6RFsTkm6vw== X-Received: by 10.98.150.79 with SMTP id c76mr16324650pfe.154.1477589481792; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2620:0:1000:1704:3cc0:3d9e:81fe:171a? ([2620:0:1000:1704:3cc0:3d9e:81fe:171a]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id yk6sm13156143pab.43.2016.10.27.10.31.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1477589480.7065.217.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com> From: Eric Dumazet To: "Steinar H. Gunderson" Cc: bloat Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:31:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20161027170447.GA28383@sesse.net> References: <20161021084726.GA1913@sesse.net> <20161027170447.GA28383@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: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:31:22 -0000 On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 19:04 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:47:26AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > > 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: > > Another datapoint: A friend of mine had a different, worse path (of about 40 ms) > and tested with iperf. > > CUBIC delivered 20.1 Mbit/sec (highly varying). BBR delivered 485 Mbit/sec. Yes ;) I had cases where cubic was delivering 3 Mbits, but BBR could deliver 1000 times more ;) Thanks !