From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rick.jones2@hp.com>
Received: from g1t0027.austin.hp.com (g1t0027.austin.hp.com [15.216.28.34])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.hp.com",
	Issuer "VeriSign Class 3 Secure Server CA - G3" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53D9321F11D;
	Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from g1t0039.austin.hp.com (g1t0039.austin.hp.com [16.236.32.45])
	by g1t0027.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B5438438;
	Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:13:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [16.103.148.51] (tardy.usa.hp.com [16.103.148.51])
	by g1t0039.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06B53438E;
	Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:13:54 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <50B3DB92.5070806@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:13:54 -0800
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw5yFvrOyXu2s2DY3oK_0v3OaNfnL+1zTteJodfxtAAzcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA93jw5DcnWbE9Zb-JCeimT+YckUcM7AA3iiwXJx95Np2F8vmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121123221842.GD2829@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87a9u7amon.fsf@toke.dk>
	<CAA93jw6_p_aq3o-Jx3w1-j+OQOcU27P85VSYCDpTTEw3hAL1VQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw6_p_aq3o-Jx3w1-j+OQOcU27P85VSYCDpTTEw3hAL1VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it>,
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>,
	codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net,
	bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	John Crispin <blogic@openwrt.org>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Codel] FQ_Codel lwn draft article review
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: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 21:13:57 -0000

On 11/24/2012 08:19 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> The UDP ping tests tend to not work so well on a loaded link,
>> however, since netperf stops sending packets after detecting
>> (excessive(?)) loss. Which is why you see only see the UDP ping times on
>> the first part of the graph.
>
> Netperf stops UDP_STREAM exchanges after the first lost udp packet.

The UDP_STREAM test will keep blasting along until the end-of-test timer 
fires.  It is the non-burst-mode UDP_RR test which comes to a halt on 
the first lost datagram.

> After staring at the tons of data collected over the past year, on
> wifi, I'm willing to strongly suggest we just drop TCP packets after
> 500ms in the wifi stack, period, as that exceeds the round trip
> timeout...

How does WiFi "know" what the TCP RTO for a given flow happens to be? 
There is no 500 millisecond ceiling on the TCP RTO.

rick jones