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 6873C21F5CB for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:59:54 -0800 (PST) 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=1446573591; bh=BEsNTQMDJkEQZR82QhJ0OgmLkF737m6EOEQsc0x0Tb4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=UTn1/6jseT+DeO0Bz0UfPtE0uwNtBLa+25mqCNY08NH3Fr51tBZF54W703QoN4u8k XNZ9zPsyNOccMWC3BShxOsJGhzbJWXwbxf4Ird+eSoI2CaHLCtepoDImu08xOvaGDN 6MhxmQRyrp1tjCBs13lbIVYV8GTUEW5qpASHiu2M= Received: by alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 81A104E6F3A; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:59:50 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Sebastian Moeller References: <87pozspckj.fsf@toke.dk> <6A2609D9-7747-487B-9484-ECC69C50DE96@gmx.de> <874mh3pai9.fsf@toke.dk> <50C2A7B7-1B81-41E1-B534-CA449296FE77@gmail.com> <87a8qvc8tz.fsf@toke.dk> <328DEF4F-F149-42C5-920E-53D16DCF544C@gmx.de> <87si4natbf.fsf@toke.dk> <87fv0nasy5.fsf@toke.dk> <878u6fas88.fsf@toke.dk> <64F71419-78F8-465F-B43E-D0F2CF08AB19@gmx.de> <8737wnarzp.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:59:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Sebastian Moeller's message of "Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:57:40 +0100") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87twp39d61.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cake] Long-RTT broken again 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: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:00:17 -0000 Sebastian Moeller writes: > But incase of a byte limit I think using sib->true size is the right > thing... No, the opposite: The byte limit expresses the queue size measured in actual packet size, not consumed memory; aren't we going somewhat in circles here? :P -Toke