From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E5093CB35 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 20:18:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0ACC389AE; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 20:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id p1XnRjV3eotm; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 20:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AF73899F; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 20:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121306A; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 20:18:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com, bloat In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Subject: Re: [Bloat] An interesting, and probably erroneous, article on 5G and TCP buffering X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 00:18:19 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Dave Collier-Brown wrote: > Only being able to use 20% of the bandwidth is clearly not good (on 4G > the same algorithms achieve > 50-70%). BBR > does much better with 5G, achieving 82.5% utilization. An investigation > reveals the problem to be caused by buffer sizes. In the radio portion > of the network, 5G buffer sizes are 5x 4G, but within the wired portion > of the network only about 2.5x (this is with a 1000 Mbps provisioned > cloud server). At the same time the download capacity of 5G is about 5x > greater: "i.e., the capacity growth is incommensurate with the buffer > size expansion in the wireline network." Doubling the wireline buffer > size would alleviate the problem. BBR does better because it is less > sensitive to packet loss/delay. Is this with one flow or many thousands one would expect a real network to have? Since we want buffers to be empty, it's unclear to me if TxOps are really being lost, or what. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAl97t8kACgkQgItw+93Q 3WX8zwf+Nbt6RmfzkVQSkst13xtjzjG14vN3aAX2nhf7tGSMKYZhcamjQMPxEUIy +xH1MagF/0bm1mMKzA+bi9cQbFVe8Jfx858xPgAbmtm8zlcJcZ8kApnyKZbKtIJm ZkkHpRx06KyU60PlAZE4def4oVBTi+G6EL07CrG6/HtWByqWsjvvFnE1icont+Fk DhKqiTGkVVbgeJpZxQD6x9zufCllM13EzjUi+M07x52O71kBvUK/Ro58fis72FN+ G4UDZZv95E5hk8jKsS8SibC9krQKWn2wCyBgtbqaIO9aF7seF1kG5CyFBe2kzvq3 e4B1I+GatY4gg6+aUvq5uBkobuobug== =sRAS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--