From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.taht.net (mail.taht.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:7028]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7BF53BA8E for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 16:15:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from nemesis.taht.net (unknown [IPv6:2603:3024:1536:86f0:2e0:4cff:fec1:1206]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.taht.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 275C321367; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 21:15:45 +0000 (UTC) From: Dave Taht To: Jonathan Morton Cc: Georgios Amanakis , Cake List References: <1512426648.21759.19.camel@gmail.com> <1512436395.8927.10.camel@gmail.com> <1512445837.3088.2.camel@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 13:15:43 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Jonathan Morton's message of "Tue, 5 Dec 2017 06:48:21 +0200") Message-ID: <87vahkdgg0.fsf@nemesis.taht.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Cake] cake vs fqcodel with 1 client, 4 servers 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: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 21:15:53 -0000 Jonathan Morton writes: > I might try to implement a dynamic target adjustment later today. The loss of throughput here compared to non-ingress mode is a blocker for mainlining and for that matter, wedging this into lede. Has it always deteriorated this way? > > - Jonathan Morton > > > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake