From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2a0c:4d80:42:2001::664]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D38E23B2A4 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:31:43 -0500 (EST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1646843502; bh=DAtdXYgacwdLUf1Ce2ZFOUvYGdX6g4iz/bgNvsoItn0=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Zydvn0lVXfqo2S3beNI8O7DsF6j/le1NbngoT7lzPC25uRhSzA+tJYUad11O1OG70 BAOxf1IJ26TpB/nD5IVxLCT+XlGu4se2d57KacmBxq2y4BpAKvztmlhUb91nO6MlrJ 7MNM2fXZ0l3ccBjjFcnzV/KScY9u8Ucxtz3ZEYzm0oNTNFLql94tbjZUIAizNV9zWo mcHk+NvjhdE5J/lGClRUkYb/C9vRsYltQW3sX2eE1B4L6qjaL24xa9cNCqVyCWtluB JZLwbaI8r/y/TkoU5SbcDzvuMocbGtVNkU60w6IzpTc8pzAwhlJQTYKm8gAQ/q9kes Feu/qP4YeEs8g== To: Michael Menth , bloat In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 17:31:41 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87y21julxu.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Bloat] Up-to-date buffer sizes? 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: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 16:31:44 -0000 Michael Menth writes: > Hi all, > > are there up-to-date references giving evidence about typical buffer > sizes for various link speeds and technologies? Heh. There was a whole workshop on it a couple of years ago; not sure if it concluded anything: http://buffer-workshop.stanford.edu/program/ But really, asking about buffer sizing is missing the point; if you have static buffers with no other management (like AQM and FQ) you're most likely already doing it wrong... :) -Toke