[Bloat] temporal and spacial locality

[Bloat] temporal and spacial locality

[Dave Taht]

Some good counterarguments against FQ and pacing.

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/nsdi22-paper-ghasemirahni.pdf

-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: [Bloat] temporal and spacial locality

[Sebastian Moeller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1183 bytes --]

IMHO this is another example of 'batching helps to ameliorate per-batch set-up/processing costs'. The trick I would say is to size the batches in a way that they do not introduce too much latency granularity. For a server that might be a coarser granularity than for a client or a home router. My gut feeling tells me that the acceptable batch size is related to the required transmission/processing time of a batch.
In a sense cake already coarsely takes this into account when disabling GSO splitting at >= 1 Gbps rates. Maybe we could also scale the quantum more aggressively, but it is a tradeoff....


Regards

On 26 September 2022 03:19:30 CEST, Dave Taht via Bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>Some good counterarguments against FQ and pacing.
>
>https://www.usenix.org/system/files/nsdi22-paper-ghasemirahni.pdf
>
>-- 
>FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
>Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>_______________________________________________
>Bloat mailing list
>Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1728 bytes --]