General list for discussing Bufferbloat
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: davecb@spamcop.net
Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Make-wifi-fast] graphing airtime fairness in wifi
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1604181613090.13992@nftneq.ynat.uz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <571567D6.3030209@rogers.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/Plain, Size: 3488 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, David Collier-Brown wrote:

> I haven't internalized this yet, but my instantaneous reaction is:
>
> *   a radar screen is something people have been educated to
>   understand, so that's cool, and over time, plotting the time taken
>   for something against the load in somethings is what capacity
>   planners expect to see: "_/"

I agree, but a radar screen only shows the 'now', and I'm not sure how 
interesting that really is compared to how it looks over time.

David Lang

>
> --dave
>
> On 18/04/16 06:48 PM, David Lang wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Dave Taht wrote:
>> 
>>> I have been sitting here looking at wifi air packet captures off and
>>> on for years now, trying to come up with a representation, over time,
>>> of what the actual airtime usage (and one day, fairness) would look
>>> like. Believe me, looking at the captures is no fun, and (for example)
>>> wireshark tends to misinterpret unreceived retries at different rates
>>> inside a txop as tcp retries (which, while educational, makes it hard
>>> to see actual retries)...
>>> 
>>> Finally today, I found a conceptual model that "fits" - and it's kind
>>> of my hope that something already out there does this from packet
>>> captures. (?) Certainly there are lots of great pie chart tools out
>>> there...
>>> 
>>> Basically you start with a pie chart representing a fixed amount of
>>> time - say, 128ms. Then for each device transmitting you assign a
>>> slice of the pie for the amount of airtime used. Then, you can show
>>> the amount of data transmitted in that piece of the pie by increasing
>>> the volume plotted for that slice of the pie. And you sweep around
>>> continually (like a radar scanning or a timepiece's pointer) to show
>>> progress over time, and you show multicast and other traffic as eating
>>> the whole pie for however long it lasts.
>>> 
>>> conceptually it looks a bit like this:
>>> 
>>> http://blog.cerowrt.org/images/fairness.png  (I borrowed this graph
>>> from 
>>> http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/11/easily-create-stunning-animated-charts-with-chart-js/
>>> )
>>> 
>>> Another way to do it would be to have the pie represent all the
>>> stations on the network, and to have the "sweep hand" jump between
>>> them...
>> 
>> does it really matter how much data is passed during the timeslice as 
>> opposed to just how much airtime is used? (and there will be a large chunk 
>> of airtime unused for various reasons, much of which you will not be able 
>> to attribute to any one station, and if you do get full transmit data from 
>> each station, you can end up with >100% airtime use attempted)
>> 
>> I would be looking at a stacked area graph to show changes over time (a 
>> particular source will come and go over time)
>> 
>> I would either do two graphs, one showing data successfully transmitted, 
>> the other showing airtime used (keeping colors/order matching between the 
>> two graphs), or if you have few enough stations, one graph with good lines 
>> between the stations and have the color represent the % of theoretical peak 
>> data transmission to show the relative efficiency of the different 
>> stations.
>> 
>> 
>> While the radar sweep updating of a pie graph is a neat graphic, it doesn't 
>> really let you see what's happening over time.
>> 
>> David Lang
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 140 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-18 23:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-18 22:35 [Bloat] " Dave Taht
2016-04-18 22:48 ` [Bloat] [Make-wifi-fast] " David Lang
2016-04-18 23:02   ` Bob McMahon
2016-04-18 23:36     ` Dave Taht
2016-04-18 23:03   ` David Collier-Brown
2016-04-18 23:14     ` David Lang [this message]
2016-04-19  0:02       ` Dave Taht
2016-04-19  0:15         ` David Lang
2016-04-19  1:42     ` David Collier-Brown
2016-04-19 21:48       ` Aaron Wood
2016-04-21 17:59         ` David Lang
2016-04-18 23:11   ` David Lang
2016-04-18 23:50   ` Dave Taht
2016-04-19  0:01     ` David Lang
2016-04-19  0:07       ` Dave Taht
2016-04-19  0:32         ` David Lang

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=alpine.DEB.2.02.1604181613090.13992@nftneq.ynat.uz \
    --to=david@lang.hm \
    --cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    --cc=davecb@spamcop.net \
    /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