From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x243.google.com (mail-lf0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 624D83B29E for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:30:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x243.google.com with SMTP id x72so9893904lfb.1 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:30:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OWEWiVVpPOzdWN88wDRfyc76v4yyvwYYIAR9SB5vzJ0=; b=eYKtI8LEdE+4WFFC0Gd0U04W/jHgrusk5GOv8yDdNvIsWxbMXHKutHZAMuO5RSKyIn G24QX0CsJP4lqyEoeLe6HqyIEPw5BrgSfLwVTz8zBO2Ci3aI40tbVoV4RhmKTTky91ak XMabXDK/u9YLECd21ZbOaoxQ1bJRl84YzzaeGXBS/o+QjEB6bbSuBi+myIj4bh54J9cq kuNQCFBoi5J4orvQufPOWCKXzWq9y+hb8wZR3qkQZmtVW9L4BRJ15RMIElIHqQuqQD6D 6xTLIFSHhgzC6js5wrveKmqlORzXZeQ6bfY+cig3FQMjEJftFX5OSFenuh9NpUV/ZOw4 Z6qg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OWEWiVVpPOzdWN88wDRfyc76v4yyvwYYIAR9SB5vzJ0=; b=deoaBb3UoxJaH0TR2BTesnIjS6TSX8SuHjT5ESh1XZ5h8Ov0DPEJLawCHT02VauOpI F6pF4A+S5XA5XOXJijHu+DxmUBm3UyxUNt8ZJdcDNKv+WKtGX/3Cth05iahcRQ80sshz pEOrB7injTXqaAQ26diNeKPXG8UiC6y0yBZYR3bIKea0HGvKGWpyCvoThEqsBz9fw7PF 6dsMOaI2QnG9Kj3nRV8LcsVvLY1uOYgTwbE9on1y0oKFsA8vLWdNzg4baDH0oEmVFPfc snvvpIhlmAYoiokStnq5BU4N4E2KrnDkrOeqmyHPfcbEI4swPzrnqUbVkUyWqz/l17+/ pq7g== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4V07spIWScdS/tMZ32Ex+92Imif6T3beioODv0SbiR5xeqhsBF BSq8Y+Mpl1fwKA== X-Received: by 10.25.156.13 with SMTP id f13mr5974018lfe.77.1493487011145; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.12] (37-219-103-185.nat.bb.dnainternet.fi. [37.219.103.185]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h96sm477024lji.10.2017.04.29.10.30.09 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <64b0e940-84ae-e75c-0ddb-10e60452c59a@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 20:30:05 +0300 Cc: Dendari Marini , Benjamin Cronce , cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3FA974FA-E306-42FC-9CBD-0F5B5F8CABED@gmail.com> References: <0BA3EE91-C5BC-4155-9D5D-D15D34490A1A@gmx.de> <00DDAA0B-7D99-489B-BA2D-1F20289409B3@gmx.de> <2FFBF256-2932-4FC7-AD1F-0D7CEE111809@gmx.de> <3fbfd0ee-7b41-0f83-8b44-ce7eed6a0562@gmail.com> <09DB0D8E-F63C-4126-8608-9EACDE99D2F1@gmail.com> <64b0e940-84ae-e75c-0ddb-10e60452c59a@gmail.com> To: Andy Furniss X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] Getting Cake to work better with Steam and similar applications X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:30:12 -0000 > On 29 Apr, 2017, at 18:11, Andy Furniss wrote: >=20 > With the ingress param shaping at 1mbit 5 tcps (cubic or bbr) really > destroys latency. >=20 > With the caveat that my test may be flawed, I am currently suspecting > that cake cobalt head + ingress param and a low rate is buggy. That=E2=80=99s odd, since I=E2=80=99m currently dogfooding it at = 512Kbit, and it works fine like that. Not to the point of wanting to = play online games while torrenting and downloading Steam updates, but = that sort of limitation comes with the territory. With a game updater that uses *80* web-seeds simultaneously (a = libtorrent quirk which should get patched in the next version), I can = still reliably use my Web browser and e-mail on a second machine; these = are things that start to fail intermittently over about 2 seconds RTT, = and I=E2=80=99ve measured this ISP at 45 seconds without modification. The key thing to remember is that in ingress mode, you *must* reduce the = shaped rate to some (large) fraction of the bottleneck link, otherwise = it won=E2=80=99t control the queue at all. For example, I=E2=80=99m = reasonably sure my current link is dumb-shaped to 576Kbit at the ISP. = The smaller the fraction, the better the control of latency Cake can = achieve. This is in contrast to egress mode, where you want to match the link = capacity as closely as possible to get maximum performance; latency = control remains ideal as long as you never actually *exceed* the true = link capacity. - Jonathan Morton