From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1CEE21F463 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:37:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1446046618; bh=oOel9vg6vr7ofCG6Bm2f/wHt/nPTVijwvfH6wMQvHlI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=XItqGN9eJ0sZ2UiofhKDFT9TnTmriGAcJbQfGtry83mP7j3tC4kSTk3g/s4XeNasg 0tyqA7MBGhe2FblSiqKo/EIG6/ExH1uw4LCbuyLLVjtwXCBp0LtNo4FNiYHbAmUyKF saj24iv1RtPDPfWEzZjxolGS7cFtFRTIc2g6CrN8= Sender: toke@toke.dk Received: by alrua-kau.kau.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 13DB7C40239; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:36:57 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Sebastian Moeller References: <87a8r4mji9.fsf@toke.dk> <751BA26E-3CC7-4341-99C6-2448111A07B4@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:36:57 +0100 In-Reply-To: <751BA26E-3CC7-4341-99C6-2448111A07B4@gmx.de> (Sebastian Moeller's message of "Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:28:58 +0100") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87pozzkns6.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cake] Running Cake at long RTTs X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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, 28 Oct 2015 15:37:24 -0000 Sebastian Moeller writes: > Except I requested rtf 120 ms and got 122.7, which admittedly is > close. I know I repeat myself, but on of the is one things that > irritate me in software is if software silently pretends to know > better=E2=80=A6 Now 122.7 versus 120 might be in the noise, but look at t= hat: I don't remember from where, but I suspect there's something wrong with the 'change' logic in Cake. Can you try removing the qdisc completely, then re-adding it, rather than doing a straight replace? Might not be that, but do try it out just to be sure. I have not looked at the scaling of target/interval that goes on in the different bands; but there is one? Or is there? If there is, why? It's not immediately obvious that different diffserv markings needs different settings for the AQM... > Also I notice the disparity between parameter name =E2=80=9Crtt=E2=80=9D = and the name > of the reported statistic =E2=80=9Cinterval=E2=80=9D. Jonathan, Dave, wha= t is your > preference change the reported stats name or the parameter name (I > believe it should be that statistic that needs renaming). Yes, if we're calling it RTT it should be RTT throughout. I do think that makes more sense than interval. > Next question what is the opinion on exposing target in addition to > interval? My point, which I might have over-repeated already, is we > should expose and honor it if possible. (Any with honor I mean replace > the 5ms default but do all calculations as cake usually does for > different priority bands; that also means that if only one of interval > or target where specified cake is free to scale the other one to what > it considers reasonable). I seem to recall that at some point we has "easy to configure" as a goal of Cake. -Toke