From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 2E95B21FB7F for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 07:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pannekake.samfundet.no ([2001:67c:29f4::50] ident=unknown) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZMGIR-0007vo-2C for bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:00:59 +0200 Received: from sesse by pannekake.samfundet.no with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZMGIQ-0002AV-TT for bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:00:54 +0200 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:00:54 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: <20150803140054.GA5082@sesse.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux 4.2.0-rc4 on a x86_64 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [Bloat] came across an unexpected side-effect of bufferbloat 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: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:01:31 -0000 On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:53:40PM +1000, jb wrote: > While researching a little I came across a message on the Amazon support > forums that said after 3 hours of uploading to Amazon, their cable modem > would crash and reboot. The reason was that the SNMP the cable modem needed > to stay healthy was timing out (due to the excessive latency induced by the > continuous uploading). The author didn't know it was bufferbloat, of course. FWIW, you don't need bufferbloat for this to fail. A classic thing with switches (typically underbuffered rather than overbuffered!) is that when you run the links full, the OSPF packets get dropped and eventually your link flaps because the other side thinks you're down. This is one of the reasons why most L3 switches (well, anything that's advanced enough to do OSPF or the likes in the first place :-) ) have QoS at all: You need to protect your administrative traffic. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/