From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F65F20114D for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2012 15:22:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pannekake.samfundet.no ([2001:700:300:1800::dddd] ident=unknown) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SGHXG-0008UZ-FC; Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:21:38 +0200 Received: from sesse by pannekake.samfundet.no with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SGHXG-0008Ga-55; Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:21:38 +0200 Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 00:21:38 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: Dave Taht Message-ID: <20120406222138.GB12641@uio.no> References: <20120406213725.GA12641@uio.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux 3.3.0 on a x86_64 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Best practices for paced TCP 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: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:22:44 -0000 On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 02:49:38PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: > It would be best to get some packet captures from user's streams that are > complaining of the issue. I'll try asking some users. > Most 10Gige network cards have the ability to have multiple hardware queues > that will do some FQ for you. > > SFQ or QFQ will FQ the output streams. SFQRED or QFQ + something will be > able to do some level of queue management but not 'shaping', or 'packet pacing' > > However in your environment you will need the beefed up SFQ that is in 3.3. > and BQL. If you are not saturating that 10GigE card, you can turn off TSO/GSO > as well. We're not anywhere near saturating our 10GigE card, and even if we did, we could add at least one 10GigE card more. > You can reduce your tcp sent windows. Do you know how? > I have a debloat script (with about 5 out of tree versions) that tries it's best > to do the right thing on home gear and takes a bit of the arcaneness out > of the mix. I have not got around to trying out a couple algos But debloat is just like... way too much. And probably not very tuned for our use case :-) I'll be perfectly happy just doing _something_; I don't need a perfect solution. We have one more night of streaming, and then the event is over. :-) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/