From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ey0-f171.google.com (mail-ey0-f171.google.com [209.85.215.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBCD6201ACC for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaal11 with SMTP id l11so960769eaa.16 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:04:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Iz9c4jX4BMKdoRysS1HrbYEDY7MDvkxLUdH4xKIdSrA=; b=wa/ts9jQPZH6WJ3rCFhQdiWvQ7S3J5jORT5Su9XGhI8jT8UhtQRhO9HwgVaGfL4RCJ zgHBmSP9e7F3/5Uudxio9INCebJzIWdtTg9tya7uaX5aWY8w4ZGwQQjW+Z7CLkGXTRuN X1Dlav6V0KbqHU364EJcuMHgE+IqYjwu7eaeBdLmsaOqE8hMpRDqqDHukmVpVEe2Go8B zGpmRMdThEbd2CR0IC44J/Y2VfV6bzn/LmOFBIrgYlAHwMKyzJcb5S1S9EyhHoaaNBly /c7NAe0DzOeAFBYtYSES1OH9gaBNtp7g/rww7dB7p36Rhx3zXvao+44tBiNJi4/01wRg hJoQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.104.65 with SMTP id gc1mr1892491wib.13.1332997461815; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.127.194 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:04:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <96681122-A994-4D0A-9457-3607DA3B025C@intermapper.com> References: <96681122-A994-4D0A-9457-3607DA3B025C@intermapper.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:04:21 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Richard Brown Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdb7632b20e04bc5aa82b Cc: "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Bloat] Slashdot! 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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:04:24 -0000 --f46d043bdb7632b20e04bc5aa82b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Richard Brown wrote: > It was good to see bufferbloat mentioned on slashdot... > > > http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/03/28/1439227/linux-33-making-a-dent-i= n-bufferbloat > > The OP made a fair query: has anyone benchmarked the bql and sfqred that > are in the Linux 3.3 kernel? > > OP was me, actually. *My* benchmarks are showing good results, but they are more limited than I wanted them to be at this point. Also... well I'll get to that in a second. I had a subtle purpose in pursuing a little pr at this time, as what I thought would happen was that the "Linux-3.3, now with BQL" 'story' would get boiled down to 2-3 issues that weren't necessarily correct or primary. It is normal in dealing with the press that a story needs to have a hook, conflict and resolution, and only one or two new ideas that need to be bridged to the unknowing reader. Dumping too much new stuff on a generic reporter usually leads to bad results. Thankfully cringley genuinely 'gets it', and can create a hook around anything. He tells a good story. Within those constraints however is that pesky 'simplify the issue" problem needed to get the core idea across to new audiences. In observing the responses to cringley's and slashdot's article, exactly what I feared has happened in several respects, and hasn't happened in another. They are: 0) "Linux-3.3, now with BQL! will solve all your networking problems, curl your hair, and fix your sex life". :whew: headed that one off at the pass. A 'dent in the bloat'. That works for me. 1) But spurring people into action to do what's doable, seems to be a problem. This does reinforce our overall deployment desire is that AQMs need to be 'on by default' as well as 'do no harm'. And I do need to get back to my own efforts to find useful operating ranges for what we got that can be on by default as well as 'do no harm'. 2) "Bufferbloat is a router problem only". We're failing here. Bloat is a potential problem everywhere on the path. In my own environments these days most of it is actually on my laptop, having fixed it on the routers I'm fiddling with. 3) "Bufferbloat is only a linux problem." This is kind of a natural association for a busy reader to make, and thus far we've avoided that particular distillation of the meme. (the spin that I like is that "linux is in the forefront of the battle against bufferbloat") However it does point out the reverse problem, in that we do want people on other operating systems and vendors to step up, and responses outside the linux and ietf and academic community have been tepid. I would like very much for there to be a good contact within all the big oses and vendors, large and small, known to be paying attention to our efforts, with products in the pipeline, all with fixes... 4) "Getting the story right in the first place". Still a fail. I have alerts for new articles on bloat (several other people must have, too) and nearly every one gets some core detail wrong. Sometimes I worry that the meme will be subverted... take the recent cisco 'win the war against buffering' campaign. http://blogs.cisco.com/consumer/win-the-war-on-buffering/ sigh. I made a comment. It's still awaiting moderation. http://huchra.bufferbloat.net/~d/ciscosnark/ciscobloat2.png I am just going to have to throw one of these routers into the testbed next week and see what happens. The responses were the typical spread of Slashdot responses: some funny, > some clueless, some hostile, some way OT. > > And none of them actually answered the question. This is the real problem, as BQL provides a substrate for 'doing more low latency stuff on servers, desktops and similar devices that have fixed sized tx rings' But in communicating that - and in getting people to actually try it now that it's more readily available, we're failing at present. I'd like people within the major linux vendors to be fiddling with things like sfq as potential *defaults* for desktops and servers, as they do reduce network latencies still further, and to some extent, make down stream packet loss less likely. Our own jg gave a nice (and I thought, civil) response to the comment > titled, "oversimplified PR noise ignores decade of research" and that > started out, > > 'The bufferbloat "movement" infuriates me because it's light on science > and heavy on publicity. It reminds me of my dad's story about his buddy w= ho > tried to make his car go faster by cutting a hole in the firewall > underneath the gas petal so he could push it down further.' > http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3D2752225&cid=3D39498867 > > This sounds about right: bufferbloat is well on its way to being treated > seriously: first derided, then ignored, then accepted, then discovered... > > I find gandhi comforting as well. Although I would substitute 'deployed' for discovered, and gandhi was a far, far, far more patient person than I am. However in the past we've had several people also respond with hostility to the PR effort we've given this issue. While our conversion rate among those we've engaged with patience and data hovers at nearly 100%, and I hope that that poster jg responded to does recheck his facts, I wish there was a way to have a simple message that more immediately engaged people, particularly those outside the computer science field. People like: governments, managers, VCs and wall street. It really bothers me that the economist hasn't run a story, although bloat did make a nyt blog recently. What I enjoy tremendously about modern media is that the web commentary can provide additional insight, and analogies, that help map a new idea into the contexts more minds operate in. This analogy was hysterical: https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/YGEFa2iKTfw Also good was: "one of the only analogs [to how tcp operates] I can think of might be the Blackbird stealth plane. Leaks like a sieve on the ground, spitting fuel all over the place, because at altitude the seals expand so much that they'd pop if it hadn't been designed to leak on the ground. Using gigantic packet buffers would be like "fixing" a Blackbird so that it didn't leak on the runway." - via slashdot > Best, > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 http://www.bufferbloat.net --f46d043bdb7632b20e04bc5aa82b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Richard= Brown <richard.e.brown@dartware.com> wrote:
It was good to see bufferbloat mentioned on slashdot...

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/1= 2/03/28/1439227/linux-33-making-a-dent-in-bufferbloat

The OP made a fair query: has anyone benchmarked the bql and sfqred that ar= e in the Linux 3.3 kernel?


OP was me, actually. *My* benchmarks are showing = good results, but they are more limited than I wanted them to be at this po= int. Also... well I'll get to that in a second.

I had a subtle p= urpose in pursuing a little pr at this time, as what I thought would happen= was that the "Linux-3.3, now with BQL" 'story' would get= boiled down to 2-3 issues that weren't necessarily correct or primary.=

It is normal in dealing with the press that a story needs to have a hoo= k, conflict and resolution, and only one or two new ideas that need to be b= ridged to the unknowing reader. Dumping too much new stuff on a generic rep= orter usually leads to bad results. Thankfully cringley genuinely 'gets= it', and can create a hook around anything. He tells a good story.
Within those constraints however is that pesky 'simplify the issue&= quot; problem needed to get the core idea across to new audiences.

I= n observing the responses to cringley's and slashdot's article, exa= ctly what I feared has happened in several respects, and hasn't happene= d in another.

They are:
=A0
0) "Linux-3.3, now with BQL! will solve all y= our networking problems, curl your hair, and fix your sex life".
<= br>=A0:whew: headed that one off at the pass. A 'dent in the bloat'= . That works for me.

1) But spurring people into action to do what's doable, seems to be= a problem.

This does reinforce our overall deployment desire is tha= t AQMs need to be 'on by default' as well as 'do no harm'. =

And I do need to get back to my own efforts to find useful operating ra= nges for what we got that can be on by default as well as 'do no harm&#= 39;.

2) "Bufferbloat is a router problem only". We're = failing here. Bloat is a potential problem everywhere on the path. In my ow= n environments these days most of it is actually on my laptop, having fixed= it on the routers I'm fiddling with.

3) "Bufferbloat is only a linux problem." This is kind of a n= atural association for a busy reader to make, and thus far we've avoide= d that particular distillation of the meme. (the spin that I like is that &= quot;linux is in the forefront of the battle against bufferbloat")

However it does point out the reverse problem, in that we do want peopl= e on other operating systems and vendors to step up, and responses outside = the linux and ietf and academic community have been tepid. I would like ver= y much for there to be a good contact within all the big oses and vendors, = large and small, known to be paying attention to our efforts, with products= in the pipeline, all with fixes...

4) "Getting the story right in the first place". Still a fail= . I have alerts for new articles on bloat (several other people must have, = too) and nearly every one gets some core detail wrong. Sometimes I worry th= at the meme will be subverted... take the recent cisco 'win the war aga= inst buffering' campaign.

h= ttp://blogs.cisco.com/consumer/win-the-war-on-buffering/

sigh.
I made a comment. It's still awaiting moderation.

http://huc= hra.bufferbloat.net/~d/ciscosnark/ciscobloat2.png

I am just going to have to throw one of these routers into the testbed = next week and see what happens.


The responses were the typical spread of Slashdot responses: some funny, so= me clueless, some hostile, some way OT.


And none of them actually answered the question. = This is the real problem, as BQL provides a substrate for 'doing more l= ow latency stuff on servers, desktops and similar devices that have fixed s= ized tx rings'

But in communicating that - and in getting people to actually try it no= w that it's more readily available, we're failing at present.
<= br>I'd like people within the major linux vendors to be fiddling with t= hings like sfq as potential *defaults* for desktops and servers, as they do= reduce network latencies still further, and to some extent, make down stre= am packet loss less likely.

Our own jg gave a nice (and I thought, civil) response to the comment title= d, "oversimplified PR noise ignores decade of research" and that = started out,

'The bufferbloat "movement" infuriates me because it's li= ght on science and heavy on publicity. It reminds me of my dad's story = about his buddy who tried to make his car go faster by cutting a hole in th= e firewall underneath the gas petal so he could push it down further.' = http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3D27522= 25&cid=3D39498867

This sounds about right: bufferbloat is well on its way to being treated se= riously: first derided, then ignored, then accepted, then discovered...


I find gandhi comforting as well. Although I woul= d substitute 'deployed' for discovered, and gandhi was a far, far, = far more patient person than I am.

However in the past we've had= several people also respond with hostility to the PR effort we've give= n this issue. While our conversion rate among those we've engaged with = patience and data hovers at nearly 100%, and I hope that that poster jg res= ponded to does recheck his facts, I wish there was a way to have a simple m= essage that more immediately engaged people, particularly those outside the= computer science field.

People like: governments, managers, VCs and wall street. It really both= ers me that the economist hasn't run a story, although bloat did make a= nyt blog recently.

What I enjoy tremendously about modern media is = that the web commentary can provide additional insight, and analogies, that= help map a new idea into the contexts more minds operate in.

This analogy was hysterical: https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175= 615993706558/posts/YGEFa2iKTfw

Also good was:

"one o= f the only analogs [to how tcp operates] I can think of might be the Blackb= ird stealth=20 plane. Leaks like a sieve on the ground, spitting fuel all over the=20 place, because at altitude the seals expand so much that they'd pop if= =20 it hadn't been designed to leak on the ground. Using gigantic packet= =20 buffers would be like "fixing" a Blackbird so that it didn't = leak on the runway." - via slashdot
=A0
Best,

Rich
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat



--
Dave T=E4ht
SKYPE: d= avetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
http://www.bufferbloat.net
--f46d043bdb7632b20e04bc5aa82b--