From: Alex Elsayed <eternaleye@gmail.com>
To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bloat done correctly?
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:51:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mlf9o8$tl3$1@ger.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6AD8E150-5751-43AC-8F6C-8175C1E92DE1@gmx.de>
Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> To go off onto a tangent:
>
> On Jun 12, 2015, at 06:45 , Benjamin Cronce
> <bcronce@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Under load while doing P2P(About 80Mb down and 20Mb up just as I started
>> the test) HFSC: P2P in 20% queue and 80/443/8080 in 40% queue with ACKs
>> going to a 20% realtime queue http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/622452
>
> I know this is not really your question, but I think the ACKs should go
> into the same queue as the matching data packets. Think about it that way,
> if the data is delayed due to congestion it does not make too much sense
> to tell the sender to send more faster (which essentially is what ACK
> prioritization does) as that will not really reduce the congestion but
> rather increase it. There is one caveat though: when ECN is used it might
> make sense to send out the ACK that will signal the congestion state back
> to the sender faster… So if you prioritize ACKs only select those with an
> ECN-Echo flag ;) @bloat : What do you all think about this refined ACK
> prioritization scheme?
I'd say that this is wrongly attempting to bind upstream congestion to
downstream congestion.
Let's have two endpoints, A and B. There exists a stream sent from A towards
B.
If A does not receive an ack from B in a timely manner, it draws inference
as to the congestion on the path _towards_ B. Prioritizing acks from B to A
thus makes this _more accurate to reality_ - a lost ack (rather than the
absence of an ack due to a lost packet) actually behaves as misinformation
to the sender, causing them to
1.) back off sending when the sending channel is not congested and
2.) resend a packet that _already arrived_.
The latter point is a big one: Prioritized ACKs (may) reduce spurious
resends, especially on asymmetric connections - and suprious resends are
pure network inefficiency. Especially since the data packets are likely far
larger than the ACKs. Which would _also_ get resent.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-12 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-12 4:45 Benjamin Cronce
2015-06-12 9:08 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-06-12 15:33 ` Benjamin Cronce
2015-06-12 17:51 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-06-12 18:44 ` Benjamin Cronce
2015-06-12 18:51 ` Alex Elsayed [this message]
2015-06-12 19:14 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-06-12 19:54 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-06-12 21:19 ` Benjamin Cronce
2015-06-12 19:21 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-06-12 22:56 ` Alex Elsayed
2015-06-13 7:13 ` Sebastian Moeller
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='mlf9o8$tl3$1@ger.gmane.org' \
--to=eternaleye@gmail.com \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.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