From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from deliverator2.gatech.edu (deliverator2.gatech.edu [130.207.160.69]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB0B201A66 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from deliverator2.gatech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C2E34811D4 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail6.gatech.edu (mail6.gatech.edu [130.207.185.166]) by deliverator2.gatech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAFA4811D9 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [143.215.115.104] (lawn-143-215-115-104.lawn.gatech.edu [143.215.115.104]) (Authenticated sender: kd108) by mail6.gatech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62459225ADE for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DB72B80.7060301@cc.gatech.edu> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:30:56 -0400 From: Constantine Dovrolis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <4DB70FDA.6000507@mti-systems.com> <4DB72934.9050700@mti-systems.com> In-Reply-To: <4DB72934.9050700@mti-systems.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bloat] Network computing article on bloat 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: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:30:34 -0000 Thanks Wes - I was hoping that someone will make this point. btw, another common reason for lossless operation is the size of the flows. basically flows often finish before their window increases so much that they overflow their bottleneck's buffer. Plz spend some time to read the following paper: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Constantinos.Dovrolis/Papers/buffers-ton.pdf It is very relevant to the bufferbloat initiative and it shows clearly, I think, that statements like "Big Buffers Bad. Small Buffers Good." are crude oversimplifications that will cause even more confusion. regards Constantine On 4/26/2011 4:21 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote: > > > Operating with infinite storage and operating without packet loss are > two different things. > > Ideally, you may have a path with ample bandwidth such that packet > losses don't occur and all connections are either application limited or > receive window limitedand congestion control never kicks in. In this > case, there's no loss and the Internet clearly works. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Constantine Dovrolis, Associate Professor College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology 3346 KACB, 404-385-4205, dovrolis@cc.gatech.edu http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~dovrolis/