From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb0-x22e.google.com (mail-yb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::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 CF2AF3B25E for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yb0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id d128so25569104ybh.2 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:58:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=x7RdSOJ7xh0MRmR+xZ0kJ5M/ff41/eU1I2vvggHWen0=; b=nIjoiqM1JLsAvNOPKs5YypsNcfyjfbJGLzvMGaKDu/J/SHOuKRIg+iJIl4hRDihcGH XmKTIEFobH/ztBbqEc1BgI8BEjXtYkzdrHIWQ7baFDtY8c4t08Nfrtva+ch889DFZ9Hy eo1WoGfdAVrj3FfD3o5g8iIflC+aDdC4qskHQPaWDkgk73DAs49p5niI3Jj9WU4k/ixL en3IXVypYdw7RGqQltwtZLdOOvuulv1E6Gj7KYJuWPAsqJPBWVgWTS7EFbAX20ADuMV8 KHXhvE2ESOQCqUhk21MLwqC5Uy19mK24isbc8c7tidu4vzLyKiVT85kNc/90qS/RCKuF zAKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=x7RdSOJ7xh0MRmR+xZ0kJ5M/ff41/eU1I2vvggHWen0=; b=biu2YRajekk1gmqJJCizAG45E9t/ZXwaZ8EjrqCM2PhIsK7dePg33IISnrAo6cOF1m 8qUzfQTP2BNDJXet3hquaJ5nCaztrCXhUOs4qmBbYkXmYTsBymBNG9SZjbY8whW8zqvd TjkNaZxq7BaHAam5U8+xYExyFWnEi2hXErvEWilzeKqv6RlwlG9jGPUDngYvR44ONU4Y VR2qy+maXyGKiE9O4b2zA/e/4BxO0qHaI0JEAYx+rDLxpQSEHRe0/xOZmk9/J7GemeLd SZZrhueL/MfelI+i0m/+CLodeAcucal6A4Gh3LuJ+D9BlkjKI0OB8nqNQkBCgCSanhYb +3bA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdCqGzvtw+ebmjNrgozqsPlbLw3RCUAa0+KzruLoJ5C0pCksUoFs0Mk/rtamLQE2AxVag58uqbS4DpA6Htw X-Received: by 10.36.30.204 with SMTP id 195mr11663447itt.90.1477591110046; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:58:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.245.163 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:57:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20161021084726.GA1913@sesse.net> <20161027170447.GA28383@sesse.net> From: Yuchung Cheng Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:57:49 -0700 Message-ID: To: Dave Taht Cc: "Steinar H. Gunderson" , bloat , BBR Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] "BBR" TCP patches submitted to linux kernel 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: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:58:30 -0000 On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson > wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:47:26AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >>> As a random data point, I tried a single flow from my main server in .n= o >>> to my backup server in .nl and compared CUBIC (with sch_fq) to BBR (nat= urally >>> also in sch_fq) on the sender side. The results were quite consistent a= cross >>> runs: >> >> Another datapoint: A friend of mine had a different, worse path (of abou= t 40 ms) >> and tested with iperf. >> >> CUBIC delivered 20.1 Mbit/sec (highly varying). BBR delivered 485 Mbit/s= ec. > > I mostly live in a world (wifi) where loss is uncommon, unless forced > on it with a AQM. > > At the moment my biggest beef with BBR is that it ignores ECN entirely > (and yet negotiates it). BBR is then so efficient at using up all the > pipe that a single queued aqm "marks madly" and everything else > eventually starves. Watch "ping" fade out here... > > http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/bbr-comprehensive/bbr_ecn_eventually_starvi= ng_ping.png Thanks Dave for this issue. We design BBR with CoDel in mind b/c Van co-designs both :) We have tested BBR with CoDel before and it works. Could you share your tcpdump traces with us (maybe you already did but no sure) or suggest how to reproduce this. This is 2 bbr flow or bbr + ecn-cubic? (I am guessing based on caption in your graph) > > somewhat conversely in fq_codel, this means that it ignores codel's > marking attempts entirely and BBR retains it's own dynamics, (while > the non-BBR flows are fine) which is kind of neat to watch. > >> /* Steinar */ >> -- >> Homepage: https://www.sesse.net/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Bloat mailing list >> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > > > > -- > Dave T=C3=A4ht > Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! > http://blog.cerowrt.org > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat