From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Received: from mail.vyatta.com (mail.vyatta.com [76.74.103.46])
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2221201A70
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sat,  7 May 2011 17:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.vyatta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606F31828947;
	Sat,  7 May 2011 17:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at tahiti.vyatta.com
Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (mail.vyatta.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 0L-FMzlXPsOM; Sat,  7 May 2011 17:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nehalam (static-50-53-80-93.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net
	[50.53.80.93])
	by mail.vyatta.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 829BB1828906;
	Sat,  7 May 2011 17:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 17:15:55 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110507171555.240f9f8f@nehalam>
In-Reply-To: <A3D6765D-BD52-4325-8EDC-514A991FAFD5@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=9Kgz4kXRzK_KC9LpSDBEoVQiseg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTi=pOCQRdUA3_-_=q+m27H526rWK7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimrxy6=8NQ+VpysJiRcWCX6RpbrWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DB70FDA.6000507@mti-systems.com>
	<D02B19AE0CC44AFCBA30F6CD0B10C56C@srichardlxp2>
	<4DC2C9D2.8040703@freedesktop.org>
	<1EA9A6B3-F1D0-435C-8029-43756D53D8FD@gmail.com>
	<1304694852.29492.16.camel@amd.pacdat.net>
	<DA0D082C-7488-4B54-98B1-94619B7ED5DE@cisco.com>
	<20110506151003.2d2a4af3@nehalam>
	<A3D6765D-BD52-4325-8EDC-514A991FAFD5@gmail.com>
Organization: Vyatta
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Bloat] Goodput fraction w/ AQM vs bufferbloat
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 00:10:21 -0000

On Sat, 7 May 2011 19:39:22 +0300
Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On 7 May, 2011, at 1:10 am, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> 
> > Rate <= (MSS/RTT)*(1 / sqrt{p})
> > 
> > where:
> > Rate: is the TCP transfer rate or throughputd
> > MSS: is the maximum segment size (fixed for each Internet path, typically 1460 bytes)
> > RTT: is the round trip time (as measured by TCP)
> > p: is the packet loss rate. 
> 
> So if the loss rate is 1.0 (100%), the throughput is MSS/RTT.  If the loss rate is 0, the throughput goes to infinity.  That doesn't seem right to me.

If loss rate is 0 there is no upper bound on TCP due to loss.
There are other limits on TCP throughput like window size but not limits
because of loss.