From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E575200507 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 14:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr (hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr [134.157.168.1]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.14.4/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id p4VLeqim009224 ; Tue, 31 May 2011 23:41:05 +0200 (CEST) X-Ids: 168 Received: from lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr (lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr [134.157.168.57]) by hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98177C03DA; Tue, 31 May 2011 23:40:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jch by lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QRWgF-0003Hs-Er; Tue, 31 May 2011 23:40:51 +0200 From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: "George B." References: <0E55287D-41D8-4CE7-8AD8-493A874B80D7@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 23:40:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: (George B.'s message of "Tue, 31 May 2011 10:20:54 -0700") Message-ID: <7iwrh6o8f0.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 4DE56064.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4DE56064.003/134.157.168.1/hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr/hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr/ Cc: "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Bloat] philosophical question 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, 31 May 2011 21:24:29 -0000 > So there have been no packets dropped and there is no backlog and the > path is clean all the way to the Internet without any congestion in my > network (the path is currently about 5 times bigger than current > bandwidth utilization and is 10GigE all the way from the switch to > which the server is connected all the way to the Internet). Any > congestion would be somewhere upstream from me. If you're not congested, then don't bother. Just reduce the amount of bufferring as much as it will go without reducing throughput, and be happy. If you see congestion, then try to put an AQM at the bottleneck node. If you cannot do that, you'll need to artificially throttle your server (using tbf or htb, if Linux) in order to move the bottleneck, with all the comfplexity and inefficiency that this entails. -- Juliusz