From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>,
Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cake] dual-src/dsthost unfairness, only with bi-directional traffic
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 08:37:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C71614B-C4DA-4D6E-812C-FEA43A6756B5@heistp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E7503143-C9CD-4BED-8EA4-2CA444FC739E@heistp.net>
> On Jan 3, 2019, at 11:06 PM, Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> wrote:
>
> I’m almost sure I tested this exact scenario, and would not have put 8 up / 8 down on one IP and 1 up / 1 down on the other, which works with fairness for some reason.
I’m going to dial this statement back. I went back through my old tests and in my main series of a thousand tests or so, I was splitting the two uploads and downloads across four IPs, so that’s different. Then when we were testing fairness in combination with rtt keywords, I was in fact testing 2 up / 2 down on one IP and 8 up / 8 down on the other, which is a scenario that produces the expected results.
So unless I can find some other past tests, or build an old enough version to show that the behavior was different, I can’t be sure I ever tested it this way, and don’t know if it’s a regression or it just works as designed and I never realized it.
On the one hand the IP1=1/8, IP2=8/1 results are “fair” in the sense that one client gets his wish for 8 uploads and the other gets his wish for 8 downloads, like “hey, I’ll let you drown out my 1 download if you let me drown out your 1 upload” :) but on the other hand, when Jon says there should be a difference between the triple-isolate and dual modes, that’s not what we’re seeing here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-04 7:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-01 23:04 Pete Heist
2019-01-03 3:57 ` Georgios Amanakis
2019-01-03 4:15 ` Georgios Amanakis
2019-01-03 5:18 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-01-03 10:46 ` Pete Heist
2019-01-03 11:03 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-01-03 13:02 ` Pete Heist
2019-01-03 13:20 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-01-03 16:35 ` Pete Heist
2019-01-03 18:24 ` Georgios Amanakis
2019-01-03 22:06 ` Pete Heist
2019-01-04 2:08 ` Georgios Amanakis
2019-01-04 8:09 ` Pete Heist
2019-01-04 7:37 ` Pete Heist [this message]
2019-01-04 11:34 ` Pete Heist
2019-01-15 19:22 ` George Amanakis
2019-01-15 22:42 ` Georgios Amanakis
2019-01-16 3:34 ` George Amanakis
2019-01-16 3:47 ` gamanakis
2019-01-16 7:58 ` Pete Heist
2019-01-26 7:35 ` Pete Heist
2019-01-28 1:34 ` Georgios Amanakis
2019-01-18 10:06 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-01-18 12:07 ` Georgios Amanakis
2019-01-18 13:33 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-01-18 13:40 ` Sebastian Moeller
2019-01-18 14:30 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2019-01-18 13:45 ` Jonathan Morton
2019-01-18 14:32 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
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/cake.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3C71614B-C4DA-4D6E-812C-FEA43A6756B5@heistp.net \
--to=pete@heistp.net \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--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