General list for discussing Bufferbloat
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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