From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A02963B2A4 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 10:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id s5-v6so15179764ljd.12 for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 07:02:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=V8tCiK1x6pxyC2Ynyz2YYMtAISpgu9KoKesMlLnycp8=; b=TwbBuDuEJCUvAqQWf/xbkHN/owl0Jw68hN+pegCVoplLUihYWSCB+yQIepn0m++4ny n9REqbDPrkV49SBe8wHzN0A2hNbBSoDtUdOGiPk7sy/QLE6d3TQRbWTxiGPW6jthuT9B YHdPne6YePwFZBCh07xTQBw/IfVwxbNWuIvroG+aKv3cctVUMYvltG2AdcqPv/AHiJfU MEttaa3VCfhJFVLvA521ofX8f7XQMKtLWOVF+ANJYxQcl3MMnbUwmjdJZ1URTBLUygg9 1MTHYuStj0u7rJZPpFwbTlFgLo/IM6pPMNTJ1K8yO8Wdqa6JIB4aBnq0Lz0sTjtOtgbl 9Zzg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=V8tCiK1x6pxyC2Ynyz2YYMtAISpgu9KoKesMlLnycp8=; b=TP9XPbNwrMsdPOjkCVZ5Xj6JrIIiRXL8UCeQlw3RrKrKlev314ORZSJO2M6LBNVY7A rZIt1rPhR5X9oXFx+yW4evWvNZaq4v4MTKriLFBJjo7Fw8XCIkI122WWHvr0dzQDKewV 6oI/dLq3Kv9noZK8DBMPS7Skn7DW8+k2ZWTRBqm7as98x8t6BZ5l1/9MQfa2U9agzVkN N0Vs6CFdIHb4ywHhLNK7RcivsL3yABBxS4xjK6AYa26uGS+8UbfqJOsDmuUyY1DVZa9K TNbs43QFHZ8E/XaNqgirw/Ywb8uBHUgS4LF//Ykiqn/DKvA8o5hQGcoy+MY7UwVnj4cz +PEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWb47uoLZbnGsZu6Jn9uigIn+z3IjT5V7tSMuVuyyFE9ObXyuGRy A9n5amrHd+mTMdchjmDpZ0E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Vw2T2RcenPqmQBFMUUQuatf7dDxBJnmH2SV2P0Ds+bElWNLhrgac92yWMWeTXm9TM+ChCyLg== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:4218:: with SMTP id p24-v6mr13099617lja.58.1543935749824; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 07:02:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-238-21-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.238.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i78sm3315463lfa.9.2018.12.04.07.02.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Dec 2018 07:02:29 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:02:27 +0200 Cc: Dave Taht , dave@taht.net, cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <949D58FF-9C2F-4516-8547-20A712EC0C92@gmail.com> References: <87va4nzsn4.fsf@taht.net> <6578A0D1-FF6A-474E-A6D5-98185F98CB45@gmail.com> <08381337-F99A-46D1-87AF-B0F71A8753BC@gmail.com> To: Jendaipou Palmei X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Subject: Re: [Cake] COBALT implementation in ns-3 with results under different traffic scenarios 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, 04 Dec 2018 15:02:33 -0000 > On 4 Dec, 2018, at 12:31 pm, Jendaipou Palmei = wrote: >=20 > We have uploaded the plots for the 'count' variable of COBALT (with a = segment size of 1500 and 1000 bytes). >=20 > Link: https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Cobalt-Drop-Count >=20 > We have not yet implemented ECN feature in COBALT, so packets are = currently dropped instead of being marked. >=20 > Are these the plots that you were referring to? More-or-less, yes, though these actually show an internal state variable = of the Codel algorithm rather than the actual number of marks/drops per = time interval. I was hoping to see similar graphs for the = reference-Codel and PIE runs, since we can gain more insight from that, = and PIE doesn't have an internal "count" variable that corresponds with = Codel. Nevertheless, the view into "count" behaviour is interesting in = itself, and I'd like to see the corresponding graphs from reference = Codel. An artefact visible in these graphs is an apparent lack of sampling = while not in the dropping state. Thus you seem to have a gradual ramp = from 0 to 1 count over the several seconds interval between activations, = though in fact the variable is discrete. It would be better to show = that transition more precisely. For study, it is also often helpful to zoom in on small time intervals = to see the dynamic behaviour of the algorithm, particularly during the = transition from slow-start to steady-state, where there is seemingly a = big difference between reference Codel and COBALT. Another interesting graph to produce for each algorithm and traffic type = is the instantaneous throughput of each flow. This offers insight into = the relative fairness of each algorithm, and might help to explain the = anomaly seen with 1000-byte packets and COBALT. Usually this graph also = reveals, through the shape of each throughput curve, which CC algorithm = is in use - currently I'm guessing NewReno. CUBIC and CTCP, which are = also in common use, would behave differently. - Jonathan Morton