From: Neil Davies <neil.davies@pnsol.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] Detecting bufferbloat from outside a node
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 21:19:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E5ED456E-AF73-4F4A-9FE2-CBB99D0BE528@pnsol.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tww122yw.fsf@toke.dk>
Toke
On 27 Apr 2015, at 13:03, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
> Neil Davies <neil.davies@pnsol.com> writes:
>
>> I don't think that the E2E principle can manage the emerging
>> performance hazards that are arising.
>
> Well, probably not entirely (smart queueing certainly has a place). My
> worry is, however, that going too far in the other direction will turn
> into a Gordian knot of constraints, where anything that doesn't fit into
> the preconceived traffic classes is impossible to do something useful
> with.
>
> Or, to put it another way, I'd like the network to have exactly as much
> intelligence as is needed, but no more. And I'm not sure I trust my ISP
> to make that tradeoff... :(
Ah - no such thing as intelligence here - you need to go for stochastics:
there is no-way that E2E (or any other non-local control mechanism, cf SDN)
can respond quickly enough - the system is more "ballistic" (hence the stochastic
dynamics as a better framing)
>
>> We've seen this recently in practice: take a look at
>> http://www.martingeddes.com/how-far-can-the-internet-scale/ - it is
>> based on a real problem we'd encountered.
>
> Well that, and the post linked to from it
> (http://www.martingeddes.com/think-tank/the-future-of-the-internet-the-end-to-end-argument/),
> is certainly quite the broadside against end-to-end principle. Colour me
> intrigued.
Yep - direct consequence of packet neutral behaviour !
>
>> In someways this is just control theory 101 rearing its head... in
>> another it is a large technical challenge for internet provision.
>
> It's been bugging me for a while that most control theory analysis (of
> AQMs in particular) seems to completely ignore transient behaviour and
> jump straight to the steady state.
Several years ago I calculated how long it would take a gigabit ethernet (with a 100
buffer queue) to reach steady state (be within 1 part in 10^5) when offered 100%
offered load - it was six months! (usual mathematical caveats apply). Networks are
*NEVER* in steady state! We tend to try and make the "predictable" over 10 seconds -
at least beyond 10seconds control theory has a chance!
>
> -Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-27 20:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-27 9:48 Paolo Valente
2015-04-27 9:54 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-27 10:45 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-04-27 10:57 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-27 14:22 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-04-27 20:27 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-27 15:51 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-04-27 20:38 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-27 21:37 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-04-28 7:14 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-27 11:54 ` Paolo Valente
2015-04-27 15:25 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-04-27 20:30 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-27 23:11 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-04-28 7:17 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-28 9:58 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-04-28 10:23 ` Neil Davies
2015-05-04 10:10 ` Paolo Valente
2015-05-04 10:21 ` Neil Davies
2015-05-04 10:28 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-05-04 10:41 ` Paolo Valente
2015-05-04 10:44 ` Neil Davies
2015-05-04 10:42 ` Neil Davies
2015-05-04 11:33 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-05-04 11:39 ` Neil Davies
2015-05-04 12:17 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-05-04 12:35 ` Neil Davies
2015-05-04 17:39 ` David Lang
2015-05-04 19:09 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-04-28 16:05 ` Rick Jones
2015-04-27 20:13 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-27 9:57 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-04-27 10:10 ` Paolo Valente
2015-04-27 10:19 ` Paolo Valente
2015-04-27 10:23 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-04-27 10:53 ` Paolo Valente
2015-04-27 20:39 ` David Lang
2015-05-04 10:31 ` Paolo Valente
2015-04-27 10:26 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-27 10:32 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-04-27 10:38 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-27 10:52 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-04-27 11:03 ` Neil Davies
2015-04-27 12:03 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-04-27 20:19 ` Neil Davies [this message]
2015-05-19 21:23 ` Alan Jenkins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E5ED456E-AF73-4F4A-9FE2-CBB99D0BE528@pnsol.com \
--to=neil.davies@pnsol.com \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=toke@toke.dk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox