From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF0EF21F1CE
	for <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501)
	id 293EF9C; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 04:59:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC5A9A;
	Fri, 27 Sep 2013 04:59:11 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 04:59:11 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F25D8E29B@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1309270456370.32315@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAEjQQ5U2atKwXvucMKNHsRZ29RinpKMN4rZEvUGOAqNxxEvLBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<C0611F522A6FA9498A044C36073E49656D9185F2@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
	<FB9F71A5-C19E-405D-A598-BC704C38B3AA@netapp.com>
	<20130925143510.GA6191@sesse.net>
	<C0611F522A6FA9498A044C36073E49656D91899C@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1309252118590.32315@uplift.swm.pp.se>
	<012C3117EDDB3C4781FD802A8C27DD4F25D8E29B@SACEXCMBX02-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: "iccrg@irtf.org" <iccrg@irtf.org>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>,
	bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] [iccrg] [aqm]    AQM deployment status?
X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat <bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat>
List-Post: <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat>,
	<mailto:bloat-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 02:59:15 -0000

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, Scheffenegger, Richard wrote:

> I'd state that people operating datacenters with request-response type 
> data exchange via TCP do care a lot about the microscopic drop 
> distribution. Typically, a tail-drop queue has the unfortunate property 
> of losing the more critical packets of such an exchange, leading to 
> excessive "transaction" (higher level protocol) delays due to lengthy 
> TCP loss recovery.

Do you know of simulations or similar that investigates this? I would like 
to understand why having RED on a 3ms buffer depth device makes a 
difference and how much difference it makes.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se