From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) (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 418A73CB35 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 03:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id c14so35888278wrr.0 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2019 00:09:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=qP61DwOtVLvekQPIzlR/sV2l+MdSRzYdkZGxnxszoR8=; b=ftJ42kQXyLeT/qpKis/ylx7JSk/O7hbUpJ+aE6XJAtzpQEOefrzEkIHEYmvtIoKy5k Iz5Xm0d4MLyCOgdoDUG4IG/aD0lXUl56iQP9nLKpCBOgGuTPGzTMygyEE3RbI2gepKzJ D/6ppAMJkdH6BZ+QHD20+QnA2dRb61IYk3y025Z9p7r8DELAaer7OLGH8ayOrDwKSjQl B9tC4n2+o4m5LPv4+n610+hIj+nfMi35rPTuYJdMurb3h0VQGVXNns131t8TI1RpUNVd S3fiWlEcYDfPRmdF7mZ6ovG5lgfOJgHu59O+NdOaoWJ6zP+I2d+8VyhtgljjCNG6c7I7 W37A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=qP61DwOtVLvekQPIzlR/sV2l+MdSRzYdkZGxnxszoR8=; b=KoprJRtAkpmndAt9biuDBMJ6Vvoor0c/cBDBMLbo9Owi4nCG+dkXrnWFcfslCY0upD FGZROxbki7HxgMgI+PyhXx8+nDQ2BbWvSEJBNkmioczbOA1WYMjIQia4eNSdBznzCePO 9BAxRemU3WzogUSzHkEyUKq3kR2qW250HQBPG1Lrg9YANrI+YvHtVJyp49SVSFNVhenb SK1/pKlKQ68JJzt+dITwMymdmYTezG3KCH8PSVq/POdK/6tBLO5M+xNCbI40K0C2YvuC O84Lwpb/9/JdSXKch5LM53j2gYzymVZD37sBblrDFGX4ln6P7ekGjL+50xPtSuaoYErC QKsw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcxeb8u9CxUfO36+bfxi7ti3DhMZ+FeIrSh9IKNPNK5O2LUGDqT /aTqpZie5RPIXESqzdGSf8KKBA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5x92L5+hy7F3SZf6vQgd249E6bzb38SVRUUkmUFeP9kJvUO7krdBrWFb6u4BMAXsixZJw1Aw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:92a4:: with SMTP id 33mr42446598wrn.11.1546589393331; Fri, 04 Jan 2019 00:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from tron.luk.heistp.net (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i186sm493150wmd.19.2019.01.04.00.09.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Jan 2019 00:09:52 -0800 (PST) From: Pete Heist Message-Id: <7DC629FF-C4BC-442F-992B-B3C0D5C95AB3@heistp.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A8CAB45D-071B-4FAD-BDC1-091BB240CCA6" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 09:09:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= , Cake List To: Georgios Amanakis References: <8F9DE6A8-8614-46A8-9E9B-7B7E4CC7414F@heistp.net> <43a8ddec5beb962c53fe828363ecc839832de2c0.camel@gmail.com> <3650A136-97A6-43F5-ADD3-B94A19775379@gmail.com> <99C93851-3539-4CB6-BED1-193B56658486@heistp.net> <87imz6xatw.fsf@toke.dk> <87ftu9yj1n.fsf@toke.dk> <316524A2-FEB5-46DC-AC96-4E1AED27695A@heistp.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Subject: Re: [Cake] dual-src/dsthost unfairness, only with bi-directional traffic 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: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 08:09:54 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A8CAB45D-071B-4FAD-BDC1-091BB240CCA6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Jan 4, 2019, at 3:08 AM, Georgios Amanakis = wrote: >=20 > On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 23:06 +0100, Pete Heist wrote: >> Both have cake at 100mbit only on egress, with dual-srchost on client >> and dual-dsthost on server. With this setup (and probably previous >> ones, I just didn=E2=80=99t test it this way), bi-directional = fairness with >> these flow counts works: >>=20 >> IP1 8-flow TCP up: 46.4 >> IP2 1-flow TCP up: 47.3 >> IP1 8-flow TCP down: 46.8 >> IP2 1-flow TCP down: 46.7 >>=20 >> but with the original flow counts reported it=E2=80=99s still = similarly >> imbalanced as before: >>=20 >> IP1 8-flow TCP up: 82.9 >> IP2 1-flow TCP up: 10.9 >> IP1 1-flow TCP down: 10.8 >> IP2 8-flow TCP down: 83.3 >=20 > I just tested on archlinux, latest 4.20 on the router, iproute2 = 4.19.0, > using flent 1.2.2/netserver in a setup similar to Pete's: >=20 > client 1,2 <----> router <----> server >=20 > The results are the same with Pete's. One more scenario to add, IP1: 1 up / 1 down, IP2: 1 up / 8 down. In the = graph, IP1 =3D host1, IP2 =3D host2, sorry for the longer labels, and = watch out that the position of the hosts changes. dual keywords: = https://www.heistp.net/downloads/fairness_1_1_1_8/bar_combine_fairness_1_1= _1_8.svg = host keywords: = https://www.heistp.net/downloads/fairness_1_1_1_8_host/bar_combine_fairnes= s_1_1_1_8_host.svg = Also not what I=E2=80=99d expect, but host 2=E2=80=99s upload does get = slowed down, even disproportionately, in response to the extra aggregate = download he gets. Up and down are more balanced with the =E2=80=9Chost=E2=80= =9D keywords, but without flow fairness there=E2=80=99s higher = inter-flow latency.= --Apple-Mail=_A8CAB45D-071B-4FAD-BDC1-091BB240CCA6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On = Jan 4, 2019, at 3:08 AM, Georgios Amanakis <gamanakis@gmail.com>= wrote:

On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 23:06 +0100, Pete Heist wrote:
Both have cake at = 100mbit only on egress, with dual-srchost on client
and = dual-dsthost on server. With this setup (and probably previous
ones, I just didn=E2=80=99t test it this way), bi-directional = fairness with
these flow counts works:

= IP1 8-flow TCP up: 46.4
IP2 = 1-flow TCP up: 47.3
IP1 8-flow TCP down: 46.8
= IP2 1-flow TCP down: 46.7

but with = the original flow counts reported it=E2=80=99s still similarly
imbalanced as before:

IP1 = 8-flow TCP up: 82.9
IP2 1-flow TCP up: 10.9
= IP1 1-flow TCP down: 10.8
IP2 = 8-flow TCP down: 83.3

I just = tested on archlinux, latest 4.20 on the router, iproute2 4.19.0,
using flent 1.2.2/netserver in a setup similar to Pete's:

client 1,2 <----> router <----> = server

The results are the same with = Pete's.

One more scenario to add, IP1: 1 up / 1 down, IP2: 1 up / 8 = down. In the graph, IP1 =3D host1, IP2 =3D host2, sorry for the longer = labels, and watch out that the position of the hosts changes.

dual keywords: https://www.heistp.net/downloads/fairness_1_1_1_8/bar_combine_f= airness_1_1_1_8.svg

host keywords: https://www.heistp.net/downloads/fairness_1_1_1_8_host/bar_comb= ine_fairness_1_1_1_8_host.svg

Also not what I=E2=80=99d expect, but = host 2=E2=80=99s upload does get slowed down, even disproportionately, = in response to the extra aggregate download he gets. Up and down are = more balanced with the =E2=80=9Chost=E2=80=9D keywords, but without flow = fairness there=E2=80=99s higher inter-flow latency.
= --Apple-Mail=_A8CAB45D-071B-4FAD-BDC1-091BB240CCA6--