From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147])
	(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 2504921F22E
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 02:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk
Sender: toke@toke.dk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=toke.dk; s=201310;
	t=1430126436; bh=k2r6ZdN3aLQjaAqE4brZnmtSSoLQTPh4gessBYZvRhk=;
	h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To;
	b=QDdBYsAlOzhSuxBpZZ73K2ECaezirtS69KKCw7bLUfC2dWxNB9PFkiCh75Tnf4JjQ
	VA/bqF1whxF52ROoWVHCmAvWqtO/o6tylumta3S9sB/0EyOCM9SdXE34eHtQvCuqIQ
	svcSuH/RhpuAVc7IOHv55JEKg3GRDtBpBeL7RX68=
Received: by alrua-kau.kau.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 720BEC40134; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:20:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it>
References: <3E2406CD-0938-4C1F-B171-247CBB5E4C7D@unimore.it>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:20:35 +0200
In-Reply-To: <3E2406CD-0938-4C1F-B171-247CBB5E4C7D@unimore.it> (Paolo
	Valente's message of "Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:59:48 +0200")
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87zj5u2aho.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] bufferbloat effects on throughput
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:21:12 -0000

Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@unimore.it> writes:

> If there are, could anyone please point me to further reading on these
> aspects?

Bufferbloat can definitely adversely affect throughput in some cases.
Mainly because it causes throughput to oscillate: when the queue fills,
a lot of data can be dropped at once, causing throughput to drop, which
takes a while to recover. This can degrade aggregate throughput. Having
smart queueing smoothes out the traffic, so the oscillations are lower
and average throughput thus better.

The effect is most visible when you have several flows sharing a link:
when the (FIFO) queue fills, they will tend to all experience drops at
once, and so all slow down.

-Toke