Re: [Cake] Recomended HW to run cake and fq_codel?

[Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1497 bytes --]


> On Nov 27, 2017, at 4:54 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> how about keeping it simple and just give the latency increment under full (bidirectional) link saturation (I guess a catchy acronym might be found)? Yes this is a number where lower is better, but it also has immediate information (like: "mmmh, at an added 3seconds under load, VoIP might suffer a bit if I start heavy torrenting...”).

Couldn’t the number of flows contributing to the saturation affect the results though, so that it would have to be specified?

I think this gets to the crux of the original thinking behind the RRUL specification. The RRUL “Score” section contains a lot of detail for an “optimum result”, and further admissions that it isn’t easy to assess: https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/RRUL_Spec/ <https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/RRUL_Spec/>.

If we could come up with one all-encompassing and reliable metric for measuring the “goodness” of queueing behavior, it would also make testing much easier. I really wish for such a test, and sometimes try to figure out how it would look, but I don’t think it’s an easy problem to solve.

> I am not opposed to the inverse per se and I also like the "bigger is better" property, but mental division is hard and the period seems to be more informative than the frequency. But at this point anything that will get some traction will be a winner...
> 
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2320 bytes --]