From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de [IPv6:2001:470:96b9:4:130:149:220:252]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3148021F1F5 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (ibis.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de [IPv6:2001:470:96b9:1:14cb:af2e:2e24:2838]) by mail.net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3278E4C3028; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:47:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:47:53 +0100 From: Oliver Hohlfeld To: tsvwg@ietf.org, bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: <20130321204752.GA18256@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> Mail-Followup-To: tsvwg@ietf.org, bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <51408BF4.7090304@cisco.com> <514B5AC8.8000502@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux ibis 2.6.32-33-generic User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [Bloat] [tsvwg] how much of a problem is buffer bloat today? 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: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:47:55 -0000 On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:04:21PM -0700, David Lang wrote: > Also, if you measure the impact of bufferbloat in terms of how many > seconds a day the line is impacted, you get a horribly skewed view of > the impact. I agree that such a temporal view will skew the results. The approach taken in Mark Allman's paper is to measure the magnitude by measuring the number of affected packets relative to the total number of packets. This implies the amount of time a user can potentially suffer from buffer bloat when actively using the line. It's not relative to when the user is idle. Oliver