From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7178421F1A3 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 06:04:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from lawyers.icir.org (envoy.icir.org [192.150.187.30]) by fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.11.20060614/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r08E4jdp029148; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 06:04:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from lawyers.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lawyers.icir.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E493059FB7F; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:04:45 -0500 (EST) To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= From: Mark Allman In-Reply-To: <87vcb7hmip.fsf@toke.dk> Organization: International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) Song-of-the-Day: Touch, Peel and Stand X-URL-0: http://www.icir.org/mallman-files/Document2002.html X-URL-1: http://www.icir.org/mallman-files/Document23828.xls MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="--------ma10109-1"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:04:45 -0500 Sender: mallman@icir.org Message-Id: <20130108140445.E493059FB7F@lawyers.icir.org> Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bufferbloat Paper X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: mallman@icir.org List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:04:46 -0000 ----------ma10109-1 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline > graphs, ~5% of connections to "residential" hosts exhibit added delays > of >=400 milliseconds, a delay that is certainly noticeable and would > make interactive applications (gaming, voip etc) pretty much unusable. Note the paper does not work in units of *connections* in section 2, but rather in terms of *RTT samples*. So, nearly 5% of the RTT samples add >= 400msec to the base delay measured for the given remote (in the "residential" case). (I am not disagreeing that 400msec of added delay would be noticeable. I am simply stating what the data actually shows.) > Now, I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I couldn't find anything > about how their samples were distributed. (I don't follow this comment ... distributed in what fashion?) > It would be interesting if a large-scale test like this could flush > out how big a percentage of hosts do occasionally experience > bufferbloat, and how many never do. I agree and this could be done with our data. (In general, we could go much deeper into the data on hand ... the paper is an initial foray.) allman ----------ma10109-1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAlDsJ30ACgkQWyrrWs4yIs546ACeK7vQWpoAekFriVqE8GO+6bhg lO0An3O192tXxmwxMraCW78d0LT7Fcs9 =JkoJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------ma10109-1--