From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Cc: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] The Confucius queue management scheme
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:23:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874jebdngm.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2F4A44B6-2347-4976-A933-7F547D63D167@gmail.com>
Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 10 Feb, 2024, at 7:05 pm, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via Bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> This looks interesting: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.18030.pdf
>>
>> They propose a scheme to gradually let new flows achieve their fair
>> share of the bandwidth, to avoid the sudden drops in the available
>> capacity for existing flows that can happen with FQ if a lot of flows
>> start up at the same time.
>
> I took some time to read and think about this.
>
> The basic idea is delightfully simple: "old" flows have a fixed weight
> of 1.0; "new" flows have a weight of (old flows / new flows) *
> 2^(k*t), where t is the age of the flow and k is a tuning constant,
> and are reclassified as "old" flows when this quantity reaches 1.0.
> They also describe a queuing mechanism which uses these weights, which
> while mildly interesting in itself, isn't directly relevant since a
> variant of DRR++ would also work here.
>
> I noticed four significant problems, three of which arise from
> significant edge cases, and the fourth is an implementation detail
> which can easily be remedied. I didn't see any discussion of these
> edge cases in the paper, only the implementation detail. The latter is
> just a discretisation of the exponential function into doubling
> epochs, probably due to an unfamiliarity with fixed-point arithmetic
> techniques. We can ignore it when thinking about the wider design
> theory.
>
> The first edge case is already fatal unless somehow handled: starting
> with an idle link, there are no "old" flows and thus the numerator of
> the equation is zero, resulting in a zero weight for any number of new
> flows which then arise. There are several reasonable and quite trivial
> ways to handle this.
>
> The second edge case is the dynamic behaviour when "new" flows
> transition to "old" ones. This increases the numerator and decreases
> the denominator for other "new" flows, causing a cascade effect where
> several "new" flows of similar but not identical age suddenly become
> "old", and younger flows see a sudden jump in weight, thus available
> capacity. This would become apparent in realistic traffic more easily
> than in a lab setting. A formulation which remains smooth over this
> transition would be preferable.
>
> The third edge case is that there is no described mechanism to remove
> flows from the "old" set when they become idle. Most flows on the
> Internet are in practice short, so they might even go permanently idle
> before leaving the "new" set. If not addressed, this becomes either a
> memory leak or a mechanism for the flow hash table to rapidly fill up,
> so that in practice all flows are soon seen as "old". The DRR++
> mechanism doesn't suffice, because the state in Confucius is supposed
> to evolve over longer time periods, much longer than the sojourn time
> of an individual packet in the queue.
>
> The basic idea is interesting, but the algorithmic realisation of the
> idea needs work.
Thank you for taking a detailed look! I think you're basically echoing
my immediate sentiment when reading this: neat idea, not quite convinced
about the implementation details. But I didn't spend enough time
thinking about it to express the problems in such concrete detail, so
thank you for doing that! :)
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-14 16:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-10 17:05 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2024-02-10 19:42 ` Dave Taht
2024-02-14 14:24 ` Jonathan Morton
2024-02-14 16:23 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2024-02-14 16:25 ` Dave Taht
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=874jebdngm.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@toke.dk \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=chromatix99@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox