From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] Long-RTT broken again
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:43:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50C2A7B7-1B81-41E1-B534-CA449296FE77@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874mh3pai9.fsf@toke.dk>
> On 3 Nov, 2015, at 13:50, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>
>> The question remains why a 15MB buffer (which comfortably exceeds the
>> traditional FIFO rule of thumb for 1 second * 100Mbps) is apparently
>> insufficient according to Toke’s tests, even with the target increased
>> as requested.
>
> Because it's not a 15MB buffer; it's a 10240 packet buffer. So anything
> from ~.5 to ~15MB. In this case, it's a bidirectional test, so about
> half the packets will be tiny ACKs. I guess doing byte accounting would
> actually be better here, regardless of what happens to the overall limit... :)
Cake does the queue accounting in bytes, and calculates 15MB (by default) as the upper limit. It’s *not* meant to be a packet buffer.
However, the bytes counted are those allocated, not the on-wire packet sizes, because this limit is meant to avoid consuming all of a small router’s RAM for one queue. This isn’t just about hard OOM, which the kernel probably has handling for already, but sharing RAM between different queues on the same device; note the different behaviour of the upload and download streams in the results given.
The only way this could behave like a “packet buffer” instead of a byte-accounted queue is if there is a fixed size allocation per packet, regardless of the size of said packet. There are hints that this might actually be the case, and that the allocation is a hugely wasteful (for an ack) 2KB. (This also means that it’s not a 10240 packet buffer, but about 7500.)
But in a bidirectional TCP scenario with ECN, only about a third of the packets should be acks (ignoring the relatively low number of ICMP and UDP probes); ECN causes an ack to be sent immediately, but then normal delayed-ack processing should resume. This makes 6KB allocated per ~3KB transmitted. The effective buffer size is thus 7.5MB, which is still compliant with the traditional rule of thumb (BDP / sqrt(flows)), given that there are four bulk flows each way.
This effect is therefore not enough to explain the huge deficit Toke measured. The calculus also changes by only a small factor if we ignore delayed acks, making 8KB allocated per 3KB transmitted.
So, again - what’s going on? Are there any clues in packet traces with sequence analysis?
I’ll put in a configurable memory limit anyway, but I really do want to understand why this is happening.
- Jonathan Morton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-03 16:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-02 16:53 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-02 18:29 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-03 1:39 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-11-03 8:20 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-03 8:25 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-11-03 8:34 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-03 10:29 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2015-11-03 11:08 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-03 11:45 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-03 11:57 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-03 12:41 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-03 11:50 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-03 16:43 ` Jonathan Morton [this message]
2015-11-03 17:05 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-03 17:11 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-03 17:25 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-03 17:31 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-11-03 17:33 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-03 17:46 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-03 17:49 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-03 17:52 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-03 17:54 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-03 17:57 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-03 17:59 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-03 18:06 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-03 19:17 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-11-03 19:24 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-05 14:36 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-05 19:30 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-11-06 11:00 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-06 14:15 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-06 15:09 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-07 5:02 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-11-07 5:16 ` Dave Taht
2015-11-07 6:49 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-11-07 8:48 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-07 10:51 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-11-07 13:06 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-11-07 13:42 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-07 16:34 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-07 13:44 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-07 15:08 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-07 16:24 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2015-11-07 18:25 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-11-07 19:32 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2015-11-08 16:29 ` Dave Taht
2015-11-11 10:23 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
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=50C2A7B7-1B81-41E1-B534-CA449296FE77@gmail.com \
--to=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--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