From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
To: Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com>
Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] diffserv3 tin 2 target 50% of interval?
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:24:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5B0FDEF9-6F7A-4222-8B73-C421066AB111@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ECA6D3B6-AAA1-47A3-9BCA-D2055F7C8307@gmail.com>
> On 22 Feb, 2017, at 13:12, Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, but for what it’s worth, so far I’m not seeing this confer any benefit as far as latency is concerned. I will make full results available later, but for now, here are two plots for the rrul test
The RRUL test, when viewed in Flent, only shows the latency induced by one flow (bulk) on another (ping). This is influenced mainly by the flow-isolation and priority-queue mechanisms, not by AQM.
Where AQM helps is the effect of a flow on its *own* latency. A bulk flow benefits relatively little from reduced latency, and mainly in the area of loss recovery; it also wants to operate in (or very near) the saturated regime as much as possible. A latency-sensitive flow, by contrast, wants to avoid the saturated regime and its induced latency completely, and will accept higher packet loss to achieve that.
Cake keeps the inter-flow induced latency down to very near its theoretical minimum, given certain practical constraints such as timer and CPU-scheduling latency. That’s mostly why you don’t see a latency difference in RRUL. The other major factor is that RRUL loads all tins with bulk data, which means the Voice tin in particular is running in deprioritised mode.
- Jonathan Morton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-22 11:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-22 10:17 Pete Heist
2017-02-22 10:24 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-02-22 11:12 ` Pete Heist
2017-02-22 11:24 ` Jonathan Morton [this message]
2017-02-22 11:32 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-03-19 15:41 ` Pete Heist
2017-02-22 12:44 ` Pete Heist
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=5B0FDEF9-6F7A-4222-8B73-C421066AB111@gmail.com \
--to=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=peteheist@gmail.com \
/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