From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5469E21F622 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 05:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle.home.lan ([93.194.233.219]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lhfu5-1YA8CJ1JxZ-00msVu; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:18:02 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <000301cfc37d$0002b720$00082560$@duckware.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:18:01 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <000001cfbefe$69194c70$3b4be550$@duckware.com> <000901cfc2c2$c21ae460$4650ad20$@duckware.com> <4A89264B-36C5-4D1F-9E5E-33F2B42C364E@gmail.com> <002201cfc2e4$565c1100$03143300$@duckware.com> <000301cfc37d$0002b720$00082560$@duckware.com> To: Jerry Jongerius X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:wlS0lgkmxpw+T2WxiNsHtOr+1Pivtbpr4kKQJtVpls2XSeB8+FR 5k7SKSWqgVFLR+qUEHj1xmOy5Q6Kq7pWPB9YffpbsGzhtAbu0J1aU2N3IaMtC2BEWo2aabQ AVYRUwpxVhJDCmoNJj3dbqeKXJFZ5ltKGuutQbP4oIjwmqOoqLggSYf78oiy1sVQADKM6l0 Dz9O+Kxs0Aw/I46LoqaAA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] The Dark Problem with AQM in the Internet? 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: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:18:06 -0000 Hi Jerry, On Aug 29, 2014, at 13:33 , Jerry Jongerius wrote: >> Okay that is interesting, Could I convince you to try to enable SACK >> on the server and test whether you still see the catastrophic = results? >> And/or try another tcp variant instead of westwood+, like the default > cubic. >=20 > Would love to, but can not. I have read only access to settings on = that > server. Ah, too bad, it would have been nice to be able to pinpoint this = closer (is this effect a quirk/bug in westwood+ or caused by the = =93archaic=94 lack of SACKs). But this list contains vast knowledge = about networking, so I hope that someone has an idea how to get closer = to the root-cause even without root access on the server. Oh, maybe you = can ask the hosting company/ owner of the server to switch the tcp for = you? Best Regards Sebastian=