From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sesse@samfundet.no>
Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no
	[IPv6:2001:67c:29f4::29])
	(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 A876321F203
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pannekake.samfundet.no ([2001:67c:29f4::50] ident=unknown)
	by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtps
	(TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <sesse@samfundet.no>)
	id 1WQmmo-0001vR-Lk; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:54:10 +0100
Received: from sesse by pannekake.samfundet.no with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <sesse@samfundet.no>)
	id 1WQmmo-0002SZ-6p; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:54:10 +0100
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:54:10 +0100
From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140320235410.GA7727@sesse.net>
References: <07BD4518-2A7E-4F43-8978-791E3B2BDA2A@cisco.com>
	<CAA93jw6vwyuL2xeo3ATEJaakHfTMcR9pCa5aq3grV0oO6A87-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<87eh1wc05c.fsf@toke.dk>
	<CAA93jw5e4EYzAR6BvmXsc0NYypkY7f1LWYGPJMJyS71KwbqqDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a9ckbz1q.fsf@toke.dk>
	<CAA93jw6COvaRzGn2+Tde9xosEWeWWRrmH7mF1mJicBdrROzGvQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALQXh-MKEVrTJDn-qoA3R4byy1pxH7u0cQaH8j=U_=6HvAGi0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA93jw4_M+w_3ZZpYNpQu55c44y7ccvKtTEzYEQotH1gcy+cWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1395358884.9114.102.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
	<20140320234536.GA2592@sesse.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140320234536.GA2592@sesse.net>
X-Operating-System: Linux 3.13.3 on a x86_64
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sesse@samfundet.no>,
	renaud sallantin <renaud.sallantin@gmail.com>,
	bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] AQM creeping into L2 equipment
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: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:54:14 -0000

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:45:36AM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> Yes, I use SO_MAX_PACING_RATE both for TCP and UDP. The user experience over
> the Internet is markedly better; I doubt I would have problems picking it out
> in an A/B test.

I should point out that this is compared to pfifo_fast, not fq without
FO_MAX_PACING_RATE. Apologies for any confusion.

/* Steinar */
-- 
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/