From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from masada.superduper.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:ba8:1f1:f263::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3759721F814 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from block9.public.monkeybrains.net ([162.217.75.161] helo=[192.168.128.5]) by masada.superduper.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZK5bg-0002Pe-9I; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:11:49 +0100 From: Simon Barber To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= , Juliusz Chroboczek Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:11:45 -0700 Message-ID: <14ed5013130.27f7.e972a4f4d859b00521b2b659602cb2f9@superduper.net> In-Reply-To: <87mvygtm1a.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87a8ugqvid.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <87r3nstnj5.fsf@toke.dk> <876154qtkt.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <87mvygtm1a.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 AquaMail/1.5.7.29 (build: 21070094) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] AQM and PPP on Linux 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: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:12:23 -0000 The main danger is the negative effects on performance of using Codel. You may experience low throughput on high RTT links. Simon Sent with AquaMail for Android http://www.aqua-mail.com On July 28, 2015 7:06:22 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > > >> What distro are you on? > > > > Debian. (One machine stable, one testing.) > > Right. Don't know if there's already an effort to convince the Debian > devs to switch the default... > > >> Set this to fq_codel and you should be good to go. > > > > Is that safe? I'm thinking lo and virtual interfaces. > > Why wouldn't it be? The lo interface doesn't have a queue at all AFAIK. > And if you have congestion at your virtual interfaces wouldn't you want > it de-bloated? :) > > -Toke > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat