From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from p-mail1.rd.orange.com (p-mail1.rd.orange.com [195.101.245.15]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE22521F1C7 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:27:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail1.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id AF95E41024C; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:27:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.194.32.11]) by p-mail1.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9FB410249; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:27:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.193.116.35] (10.193.116.35) by FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (10.194.32.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:27:52 +0200 Message-ID: <553882D7.4020301@orange.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:27:51 +0200 From: MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Dumazet References: <2C987A4B-7459-43C1-A49C-72F600776B00@gmail.com> <14cd9e74e48.27f7.e972a4f4d859b00521b2b659602cb2f9@superduper.net> <20150422040453.GB36239@sesse.net> , <1429676935.18561.42.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <12383_1429692679_55376107_12383_9099_1_p7gmr0psut68sen0sao8o4lp.1429692550899@email.android.com> , <1429710657.18561.68.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <25065_1429716388_5537BDA4_25065_2328_1_63pyislbvtjf653k3qt8gw2c.1429715929544@email.android.com> <1429717468.18561.90.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <5537CDB7.60301@orange.com> <1429722979.18561.112.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <5537DA20.1090008@orange.com> <5537DE4D.8090100@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <5537DE4D.8090100@orange.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] DSLReports Speed Test has latency measurement built-in X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 05:28:23 -0000 one reference with pdf publicly available. On the website there are various papers on this topic. Others might me more relevant but I did not check all of them. Understanding the Performance of TCP Pacing, Amit Aggarwal, Stefan Savage, and Tom Anderson, IEEE INFOCOM 2000 Tel-Aviv, Israel, March 2000, pages 1157-1165. http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~savage/papers/Infocom2000pacing.pdf On 04/22/2015 07:45 PM, MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN wrote: > I remember a paper by Stefan Savage of about 15 years ago where he > substantiates this in clearer terms. > If I find the paper I'll send the reference to the list. > > > On 04/22/2015 07:28 PM, MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN wrote: >> Exactly. Two same CC modules competing on the same link, one w pacing >> the other one w/o pacing. >> The latter will have negative impact on the former in FIFO. Not in FQ >> (fq_codel to clarify). >> And that's my incentive argument which comes from the flow isolation >> feature of FQ (_codel). >