From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out01.uio.no (mail-out01.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCB9C3B29E for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 06:07:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-mx12.uio.no ([129.240.10.84]) by mail-out01.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gRbDN-0002j7-51; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:07:37 +0100 Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx12.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gRbDM-0008p9-KC; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:07:37 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Michael Welzl In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:07:35 +0100 Cc: Luca Muscariello , Jonathan Morton , bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3530C825-7EC2-43FD-8EB5-2F8282817A5D@ifi.uio.no> References: <65EAC6C1-4688-46B6-A575-A6C7F2C066C5@heistp.net> <86b16a95-e47d-896b-9d43-69c65c52afc7@kit.edu> To: Mikael Abrahamsson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx12.uio.no: 129.240.68.135 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=129.240.68.135; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=boomerang.ifi.uio.no; X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: D7A601D4D60FB64A882AE2145D040A1F17F5935E Subject: Re: [Bloat] when does the CoDel part of fq_codel help in the real world? 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, 27 Nov 2018 11:07:39 -0000 Well, I'm concerned about the delay experienced by people when they surf = the web... flow completion time, which relates not only to the delay of = packets as they are sent from A to B, but also the utilization. Cheers, Michael > On 27 Nov 2018, at 11:50, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >=20 > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Luca Muscariello wrote: >=20 >> link fully utilized is defined as Q>0 unless you don't include the = packet currently being transmitted. I do, so the TXtteer is never idle. = But that's a detail. >=20 > As someone who works with moving packets, it's perplexing to me to = interact with transport peeps who seem enormously focused on "goodput". = My personal opinion is that most people would be better off with 80% of = their available bandwidth being in use without any noticable buffer = induced delay, as opposed to the transport protocol doing its damndest = to fill up the link to 100% and sometimes failing and inducing delay = instead. >=20 > Could someone perhaps comment on the thinking in the transport = protocol design "crowd" when it comes to this? >=20 > --=20 > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat