From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0DD63B2E1 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 09:26:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id n186so16215635wmn.1 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 06:26:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YPlmJvJNerodf0q+TdmeSgEw7FuIHFvOn03nHDt1lLA=; b=J7VVjyjMiuU92PI4cwLR/Dz+Mo3QPTzou//WoVVXGLfelF2Q89qyLls1p860CTlZQ4 4DKpZxehx7qNqkFm/bBPdUTWMm4YmGP7RdXvESSXlrXDSrrzrZcseYApwz8Evi7WO4+x pjAj/+iJkjsMYKSY27RhBxfn1t7RAul3/obWaMTOWFiEqsNNW/BlQVRZntDckNt3GRUJ xBi7FTbOVvbMVborvX8zEAB5S6im4e+DSa05KY/tnmUvMS3CAN8PMK/aReEK6icRhEaa bZ/Efvr3pMthGHHLMtYPnWQehDEM7JRESy9V0REsLyyk2tG1b8tsQH+/qOuW3aE3jExk ldVg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YPlmJvJNerodf0q+TdmeSgEw7FuIHFvOn03nHDt1lLA=; b=OBZSb4Y2kMUPly+BPJjRXjwzhnJH1FU0VwqvDMtptumLmjSwuBrPHqUxhdE/2tPcmM 6xQ5sx3DNN6a2CLE4SnzimpLBZT8bB+oDkuruXdawRv0S7m92u2/cuUJJm8uE2NMuXrq SSaiUvOSE7coW1/Zlgn9lD8D1ML/5VylJlmb3jIgoWJqpSECttHZrTPY+4dZQRTGLSd4 sRnPq7TbNOGwp3fUETT6C1sNzXJlzNU3CzoyCdfDHwHZQG+JFumkETmKrDb5m6m+ZuwM fvhVdzsa2GmZValIRJxwvz3d7sQz63A8yBFEmCilSsMaAZuiQyFtO8QKAAZeW1jYynZp M9qA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLRVdiDDhsqAZcIKbGk0NM+HJlzsE6oCbkkBj0673SMfJqMDTcD+oQuxu4khWArEA== X-Received: by 10.194.60.145 with SMTP id h17mr11365350wjr.47.1456669615620; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 06:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (host-89-243-103-61.as13285.net. [89.243.103.61]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m6sm21295851wje.21.2016.02.28.06.26.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 28 Feb 2016 06:26:54 -0800 (PST) To: =?UTF-8?Q?Toke_H=c3=b8iland-J=c3=b8rgensen?= References: <56BB8F05.2030006@mti-systems.com> <56D1F349.6040601@taht.net> <87egbx54zf.fsf@toke.dk> Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net From: Alan Jenkins Message-ID: <56D303A6.4050302@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:26:46 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87egbx54zf.fsf@toke.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Bloat] review: Deployment of RITE mechanisms, in use-case trial testbeds report part 1 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: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:26:56 -0000 On 28/02/16 13:39, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Alan Jenkins writes: > >> I wouldn't complain that I can't sustain 2056Kbps goodput when my fair >> share of the shaped bandwidth is 2000Kbps. The results might be >> showing a significant degradation, or it could be a marginal one that >> pushes over the boundary (between the 2056k and 1427k encodes). Which >> of those conclusions you start from might be influenced by whether >> you're developing a different AQM, hmm. > Exactly. And note how they just so happen to pick 11 total flows (10 > competing, one video) to share the bottleneck, putting the per-flow > throughput just below the rate needed to go up one quality level. What a > coincidence. At least it shows how difficult it is to design experiments > that put fairness queueing in a bad light ;) Ug. I try not to assume malice. It does indeed come across as motivated absence of curiosity. We ran a test where Product A scores better than Product B. Buy Product A today! * difference in presented results is within margin of error ** did you notice our "pass" threshold was literally over 100%? That the technology commonly assumed to provide fairness breaks down in this test? No?