From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x22e.google.com (mail-qt0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 800693BA8E for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 13:07:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id m13-v6so2569971qth.1 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:07:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IIcCN467l8SL3EfLTlajCESu71i2W3Cnx1sHa1b43aE=; b=sq0afPB25AIbJ+vre+VWzOS3c2RLiGNRrICQZVtCM1aMiv3ELsRA8cuLn3iOIpZHvk CnKuJiz+/QymGfkOxkJ+lzS2HYC6CsHG3R60L/qTILaTPfbBlqQZ9SyDrWRdCH5+BCFd qN7v7dOshHZ2vzGMs/EQAbcA8+FXbHb6bJod6xRWpR3/7RxyPmRV98zcIXZarLZOLpMg uV5s7gUPSOSvUR1L7+x7W1nvfEb2kss5TjOkPvflNq+QE8ludwcchGox7PpRA+59kaJs igKz5d5U0qqree/OGLYs1bOYauaetiIpZGY69cshJ+F7Pejr3DyfLL4fcaNRBfvNqdXb eDxw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IIcCN467l8SL3EfLTlajCESu71i2W3Cnx1sHa1b43aE=; b=pHHO9EjC+zFGFZcCA6b1EsGRTnieYatzC2F25iKJYahKzGoI62l7v1kdR3rBDbK57b TYXoGnHfeJ1wQLHi3aaivpIwXFg8vEJGoz3nMZsqnSulxL4nzd3DH2J/IzT+SV6owUgl +hZB6MP2j61tkwjBNdLiJ9SE/SYOj5Gfg6lWRrOpHQ/zlniyUG1VZRIGot5AJkw3iNY5 AuYOZ05AMKNdQzrMc3YE3MVBzTaWLZp1I6t+ryhXPBq82OVK65bw2Woby2aUajxz4ccS vGg94trWwXtYEEFYdWZCOh2ZPGG/rH4Mwd8R3GMMnnCMuPkWoQtO2mRt/Alob6aig+cf WEQA== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CpZT4pE48tdx0nLHYyLu4y4IJ2tbTXhqxpjxLRAi6z/WvXfBqw HKxCYcxYgLqsdK3dqMzWQqxZwtCXqpihNjh8NUShI3w0 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZBmCAhupRTN4J20xHywDE6w/Sy1hZJF22BsZikc2ft1yRVBizgkZOu4ZYQZmlBxrVXWsA0tpfZnnC+4lbDqEw= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2e87:: with SMTP id h7-v6mr2653086qta.135.1535476068535; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dave Taht Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:07:35 -0700 Message-ID: To: bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Bloat] an observation from the field 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: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 17:07:49 -0000 In looking over the increasingly vast sqm-related deployment, there's a persistent data point that pops up regarding inbound shaping at high rates. We give users a choice - run out of cpu at those rates or do inbound sqm at a rate their cpu can afford. A remarkable percentage are willing to give up tons of bandwidth in order to avoid latency excursions (oft measured, even in these higher speed 200+Mbit deployments, in the 100s of ms) - At least some users want low delay always. It's just the theorists that want high utilization right at the edge of capacity. Users are forgiving about running out of cpu - disgruntled, but forgiving. Certainly I'm back at the point of recommending tbf+fq_codel for inbound shaping at higher rates - and looking at restoring the high speed version of cake - and I keep thinking a better policer is feasible. --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619