From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ww0-f47.google.com (mail-ww0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) (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 030A3200627 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 16:24:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by wgbds11 with SMTP id ds11so4500221wgb.28 for ; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:24:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gv9rVim0+ubyVXcHVIrao6EMuAuQ8HGQvPzX5u8EnNE=; b=jn+705aDC0WT2kpVpjXynCWGlBpadOaPvfwayqeZfbTT2TxsXQNWrqtuiJl29JG/wd JXrhlOnZk0DDSlBUu1t50wa/qk8gxVADi2MG/I3eFOPq8EtRM4e3I+hJijQNmlSTgkpv HNVyI/ijz5+UI0dY8iS2wxL7OGgfrDAhJDWKE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.95.131 with SMTP id dk3mr5148749wib.6.1328401483252; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:24:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.50.194 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 16:24:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F046F7B.6030905@freedesktop.org> References: <1325481751.2526.23.camel@edumazet-laptop> <4F046F7B.6030905@freedesktop.org> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 16:24:43 -0800 Message-ID: From: "George B." To: Jim Gettys Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] What is fairness, anyway? was: Re: finally... winning on wired! 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: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:24:46 -0000 > As I read this thread, there are three questions that go through my mind: > =A0 =A01) since TCP is not "fair", particularly when given flows of > different RTT's, how do we best deal with this issue? =A0Do either/both > SFQ/QFQ deal with this problem, and how do they differ? > =A0 =A02) Web browsers are doing "unfair" things at the moment > (unless/until HTTP/1.1 pipelining and/or SPDY deploys), by opening many > TCP connections at the same time. =A0So it's easy for there to be a bunch > of flows by the same user. =A0Is "fairness" better a per host property in > the home environment, or a per TCP flow? =A0Particularly if we someday > start diffserv marking traffic, I suspect per host is more "fair", at > least for unmarked traffic. > =A0 =A03) since game manufacturers have noted the diffserv marking in > PFIFO-FAST, what do these queuing disciplines currently do? > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0- Jim > I have yet another question to ask: On a system where the vast majority of traffic is receive traffic, what can it really do to mitigate congestion? I send a click, I get a stream. There doesn't seem to be a lot I can do from my side to manage congestion in the remote server's transmit side of the link if I am an overall receiver of traffic. If I am sending a bunch of traffic, sure, I can do a lot with queue management and early detection. But if I am receiving, it pretty much just is what is and I have to play the stream that I am served. George