From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D11553B25E for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 69519A2; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:39:37 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1477024777; bh=GtEJm7DAozLee7qFFGv9i8IwkZiGhWTiKNw0NLiPWTA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Fcvwrqu/lzYQMJq13Oule1G8oPDL9E6o/GqXOJGjXSAmIY8JKU4KFUtAtDt2F1KyV 0QigGgBq/qrmwCLe8uHUQavBhVDeZ87VnpkMhAM4UJ+GS6r6ONdMm7g+jSXk5LJ+Dn 11RIq6OTXosEZ07Bux3eTXv3cfbXgNVGgzIIxd54= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64863A1; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:39:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 06:39:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Alec Robertson cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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 Subject: Re: [Bloat] Large decrease in speed needed to combat bufferbloat? X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 04:39:39 -0000 On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Alec Robertson wrote: > I've managed to get bufferbloat under control, with only 3-4ms of added > ping when downloading but I've had to set the ingress to 43000, reducing > my speed not hugely but more than I might have expected. I personally think that aiming for 3-4ms of bloat is excessive for the applications we see today. Most of the time you're not going to notice 10-20ms bloat even when using quite time sensitive applications, and that 10-20ms PDV range is probably a better tradeoff between performance and potential interactive performance downside. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se