From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 281F23B2A4 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2019 06:03:13 -0500 (EST) 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=1546513392; bh=CY94RrPFiCF3RZq4079weM4cv3xbfOEZm90OlTqpaKk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=KTpZjol70RVAthtgLSk6r4BokLo7oQ4M9z9mJb0sosLOGgQCOOoTBarUE695W9BXE A2kRqEebV9PQYGsSYSRmN8ZPOU7/KSs3VlFLPZKxTh6Ncp1JcysvLulxLk7kGiVpGT QG91bUxdhe1xox01CW+9Y0yHUWqyqKebVcHAaxYHnIRVhmzoyYDm8CvLmD47YuEz5O CWHwagNBYTQLJqSk7T+u3xYIrZQD9mOPGQk+weeO5OtqFN3AaKm6y4m/oSr6Ewu+E4 g3c5J33Pc/4M+hKo3rKJmjdgXN0KQus5Xo2xBN4UflU3ka42Cc4aNGSQ5AhI9UCwHz RIDzGQMuYJmHg== To: Pete Heist , Jonathan Morton Cc: Cake List In-Reply-To: <99C93851-3539-4CB6-BED1-193B56658486@heistp.net> 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> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 12:03:07 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87imz6xatw.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 11:03:13 -0000 > Jon, is there anything I can check by instrumenting the code somewhere > specific? Is there any way you could test with a bulk UDP flow? I'm wondering whether this is a second-order effect where TCP ACKs are limited in a way that cause the imbalance? Are you using ACK compression? -Toke