From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91F4C21F204 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id e14so4773033iej.8 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:23:45 -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 :content-type; bh=rdvciZ30iJxYPppDGBFRwAsGDr/tJz4IHGkzjceObK8=; b=Y4x0U2LFW8Hc60+jGQuQbLK/fkB4wsIhGUrK1Of9Mo6WumNCzknovcN6MGR97cE7wY XY5LmZmysyGeV7+wnh1hqkEM1cnmPWUJDVB7XcdUF6wyYRqEygGi94LpPEj1lh6TImkH 2QAYwQNkMQ61RX/fNjbN4XmqtWf+v1bTNd3ZqsQtBtkDU9tdfkYVPgkmYuug3K4muQNR J2uYREcetFvJtvjz9Cdr7/pNKC+3ycgzBKIWAp5900KgZ6MtgUASDuqd285uqLXfYYBD KaF3m8S3V3U9lPom+ayUbWxx44NRdvYK4SYJhccYWD5tWeXJyKxNQOl8vkl0mxPskNcz qXfw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.250.148 with SMTP id mo20mr2196610icb.34.1383225825746; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.241.195 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <527213F5.6060406@kit.edu> References: <527213F5.6060406@kit.edu> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:23:45 +0100 Message-ID: From: Aaron Wood To: bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300e4e51fd300d04ea095b2b Subject: Re: [Bloat] [aqm] DOCSIS 3.1 support for AQM 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, 31 Oct 2013 13:23:46 -0000 --20cf300e4e51fd300d04ea095b2b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Thanks for the information. I'd be interested in why you have chosen > PIE, e.g., instead of sfq-CoDel. Any pointers to evaluation > reports/results? Last time I saw a presentation on this it seemed > that CoDel was performing quite well. > I think this cablelabs report makes the argument for PIE: http://www.cablelabs.com/downloads/pubs/Active_Queue_Management_Algorithms_DOCSIS_3_0.pdf Mostly in that in the heavy traffic scenarios, PIE outperforms sfq_codel, and in general is a tad bit better than codel, with a simpler implementation (I think). Although I think I take issue with the "heavy traffic" model, but I'm guessing (hoping) that it's based on surveys of customer traffic. 60-110 upstream flows seems like a lot. But it's based around a heavy use of BitTorrent, so maybe that's reasonable for some people. But in all other cases, sfq really blows the doors off of the others. -Aaron --20cf300e4e51fd300d04ea095b2b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=
Thanks for the information. I'd be interested in why you have chosen PIE, e.g., instead of sfq-CoDel. Any pointers to evaluation
reports/results? Last time I saw a presentation on this it seemed
that CoDel was performing quite well.

I= think this cablelabs report makes the argument for PIE:


Mostly in that in the heavy traffic scenarios, PIE outp= erforms sfq_codel, and in general is a tad bit better than codel, with a si= mpler implementation (I think). =A0Although I think I take issue with the &= quot;heavy traffic" model, but I'm guessing (hoping) that it's= based on surveys of customer traffic. =A060-110 upstream flows seems like = a lot. =A0But it's based around a heavy use of BitTorrent, so maybe tha= t's reasonable for some people.

But in all other cases, sfq really blows the doors off = of the others.

-Aaron
--20cf300e4e51fd300d04ea095b2b--