From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D1293CB35 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:11:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1524067878; bh=eOwC3bPKrrAfQjNch/P4ZYzjKv+ey0iqYedSwwBRPa4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=WyTq2rutPJ9le4ybOUoxQpH0XHEmOQAccGuiY6X4F9N6BmJ6XEMbXfIdIFBogvzsn u8btV5VfjOfqIP+Iz8qfNO+cqI99P2wwuGXcl7NRmHi4lXzY6fl6IJw6JXC8G0+vDK BhE7U+4+yfLL4Zlnns2B1+d36gzqTBkgPnrsp29p5btfhUXbB7z44WQ8W66VcxvGtt rE/n4fmGJjsogeWyCcedU9IGb8rtSEq9wJTZkcLd6TDQOP1mPmDwXvSKNedxsqbCkY ipzp/bWNeoVXx5YTl4Zbf+Ljsf73frRkZ9Bc4hiSJcnk5pmFQRs52Kn3XHjpSrNzcI 2IRvr2NWM4JoQ== To: Jonathan Morton , Sebastian Moeller Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <3457DD8E-0292-4802-BD1E-B37771DCADA2@gmail.com> References: <87vacq419h.fsf@toke.dk> <874lk9533l.fsf@toke.dk> <87604o3get.fsf@toke.dk> <578552B2-5127-451A-AFE8-93AE9BB07368@gmail.com> <87r2nc1taq.fsf@toke.dk> <0BB8B1FD-6A00-49D6-806E-794BD53A449F@gmx.de> <3457DD8E-0292-4802-BD1E-B37771DCADA2@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:11:17 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87fu3s1om2.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results 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: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:11:19 -0000 Jonathan Morton writes: >> On 18 Apr, 2018, at 6:17 pm, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >> >> Just a thought, in egress mode in the typical deployment we expect, >> the bandwidth leading into cake will be >> than the bandwidth out of >> cake, so I would argue that the package droppage might be acceptable >> on egress as there is bandwidth to "waste" while on ingress the issue >> very much is that all packets cake sees already used up parts of the >> limited transfer time on the bottleneck link and hence are more >> "precious", no? Users wanting this new behavior could still use the >> ingress keyword even on egress interfaces? > > Broadly speaking, that should indeed counter most of the negative > effects you'd expect from disabling this tweak in egress mode. But it > doesn't really answer the question of whether there's a compelling > *positive* reason to do so. I want to see a use case that holds up. What you're saying here is that you basically don't believe there are any applications where a bulk TCP flow would also want low queueing latency? :) -Toke