From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C1F821F16D for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 04:45:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TsYYO-00082g-2m for bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:45:16 +0100 Received: from 1809ds4-ro.0.fullrate.dk ([90.184.46.60]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:45:16 +0100 Received: from toke by 1809ds4-ro.0.fullrate.dk with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:45:16 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:44:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87vcb7hmip.fsf@toke.dk> References: <20130107233732.GE3635@nuttenaction> <20130107175417.3b87e0ce@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1809ds4-ro.0.fullrate.dk User-Agent: Gnus/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:dnIyN6hd+r9k9khBbU/hQ/Gu4Zo= Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bufferbloat Paper 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, 08 Jan 2013 12:45:04 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stephen Hemminger writes: > The tone of the paper is a bit of "if academics don't analyze it to > death it must not exist". The facts are interesting, but the > interpretation ignores the human element. If human's perceive delay > "Daddy the Internet is slow", then they will change their behavior to > avoid the problem: "it hurts when I download, so I will do it later". Well severe latency spikes caused by bufferbloat are relatively transient in nature. If connections were constantly severely bloated the internet would be unusable and the problem would probably (hopefully?) have been spotted and fixed long ago. As far as I can tell from their graphs, ~5% of connections to "residential" hosts exhibit added delays of >=3D400 milliseconds, a delay that is certainly noticeable and would make interactive applications (gaming, voip etc) pretty much unusable. Now, I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I couldn't find anything about how their samples were distributed. However, assuming the worst, if these are 5% of all connections to all peers, each peer will have a latency spike of at least 400 milliseconds for one second every 20 seconds (on average). Which is certainly enough to make a phone call choppy, or get you killed in a fast-paced FPS. It would be interesting if a large-scale test like this could flush out how big a percentage of hosts do occasionally experience bufferbloat, and how many never do. =2DToke =2D-=20 Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen toke@toke.dk --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQ7BS+AAoJEENeEGz1+utPECUH/1JIzVlcpcHsDxBFowmvolFS BrEDjtRRCg/WrILz2QkwSZl90eZH0Ah7cJOyB7FKnNmuXVDRo49DmyXLNBmOsfV9 FjynH+evYY4RUQ5lXi/Ig19lgyDWXdG9iT7ldI4eXZ3WVBTEvYfp1QNnR66w/LI+ KeHA8n5nMA47mbxeBH7zDOelnzmJJlts8u6aunFGP8MfbvV/7z9IR2NcZ7ERSWtr /RaZr8LSMiATUaY7w6pv/5ex/+k7evEZsazik/tbvVoH8IxGSzIGZqNNdjLeURXe ZjETkka3EI2TQnOqtMVcKnCvex6Q9Fg5C8LEtv65in2KyC8zweb7Z8Es2c15kcI= =dmN0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--