From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (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 DA8E63B2A4 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:20:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id a8so2528583qkb.8 for ; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 08:20:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wLTmcF3RPK+Q4214enAUZ9Te/O64HeQejXU1IIjcnXc=; b=jLEtjGOmLhP9klwXOeucyzpa41afzMjVeANz9QAXPBuA6tYI9KtGCGcmbxYS65v1cg +cK5jrh39M/l75Q+CN3ghnhMxGzKa2bqlC3AFssD98Ke3dnC+a4Lxj91SOn/256wvdYe /0D87v8QVLLjsJ3y5aWtb+s8p/Woq5aIqAT5K6N2GCsJ2xqamPCiW258Fdar+JvZbZw7 UwWYjK0TVUXEXJCzWgN1Bt8ziyadxbzxrITbf7TkTj5Xb9bbUoE8TWia2cqsMqpAQ3SP M64ucIbkviQrIcfEUT5JuQlDCjB4CV5YtiMYnSXC2J8+vAD8XFmIirrSZFItEJwLmaub wDDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wLTmcF3RPK+Q4214enAUZ9Te/O64HeQejXU1IIjcnXc=; b=X4bZVFlsMFU3pFZPVUdSz8/SERm14kFKFV+UXO1xfySaWbnIaAWGp7hDVyBojqh6pY 6Vy72/yarGmDJlak29dgyWudqifNwUDfmmCOwFYhYgSGeox5rZpEkIaljZKpCZRrU6ZJ Jnz+u5ZcZQ+uxlPE1khDMsEhKp6SbQMqmEUfSWY7FGmGi1gAFn7CaN22zyRasJsljApL hsoBoCL0y+p0TiuqUu+mqff4CGx2eCjpw7Mw9/+KdaVg7rA6zCoSGgjsbtS8N56yrOIH 5oyA4sGah267HFrn86xPzxKDh7n/dghX19FuI6rt67Y7Si9+Qzvn83caj9EV7TXES7/a K6Pw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfTol3B47Khh35gOLs96AdVmzmv83KRF6uGchsiR1owp4ksAN5b r4+sWut/woAPGxoSNrSZGvpFwmAA5wtFiloKv1I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouKzyGScoNz+ZHooN11k/sGutBSEpPTeJrbaRe/r3vVqDAFCn8R/ZXaUk24HudFwIcOve/vofDFylVcN4B4+jM= X-Received: by 10.233.222.6 with SMTP id s6mr92883qkf.327.1515082813383; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 08:20:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.193.93 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:20:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <87bmi97l3w.fsf@toke.dk> From: Dave Taht Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:20:12 -0800 Message-ID: To: Luca Muscariello Cc: Jonathan Morton , Cake List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] Modification of DRR with deficit saving 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, 04 Jan 2018 16:20:14 -0000 On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Luca Muscariello wrote: > Sanity check: the active flow list in Jim's work is very compact > as it counts only the flows with a packet in the queue. > So you need to read that paragraph with this in mind. Then you'll agree := ) > > I have a reasonable proof that what cake is doing is truly sane. > You just need to compare cake to Jim's monumental work and see that it fi= ts > in that class. I agree it does. > Then you sleep well as I do. I'd sleep better if I knew at least some of this stuff was actually making it out into a few vendors head-ends. > don't pay too much attention to admission control. > Even if it makes sense to me. In case of overload, i.e. too many flows in > the system for too long, > nobody is happy. > Accepting more flows is making no one happier. The new one included. > So instead of dropping one random packet, dropping new SYN packets seems > like the bouncer telling > you "guys: there is no room left". And it works well in the home. Yes, SYN rate limiting is the default (and set very low) in nearly everything. That might be measurable. QUIC is now 7% of internet traffic. Done fixing the home. It's time to fix the rest of the internet. And that's not just queue theory but address assignment and routing. Here's a traceroute from where I sit in Nicaragua at the moment, post cake. How to figure out exactly how much NAT is on the path? daves-MacBook-Air:Downloads d$ traceroute -n 8.8.8.8 traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 192.168.1.1 72.710 ms 2.548 ms 1.639 ms 2 10.0.0.1 2.384 ms 2.086 ms 2.070 ms 3 192.168.66.1 18.438 ms 11.606 ms 8.063 ms 4 165.98.53.209 23.945 ms 13.506 ms 16.446 ms 5 172.20.1.77 15.788 ms 21.602 ms 7.710 ms 6 172.20.28.21 10.496 ms 13.440 ms 15.514 ms 7 172.20.26.77 11.745 ms 9.659 ms 7.834 ms 8 172.20.0.81 17.636 ms 12.180 ms 20.880 ms 9 172.20.25.30 52.408 ms 32.566 ms 21.970 ms 10 165.98.53.41 17.654 ms 10.712 ms 15.352 ms 11 84.16.9.155 51.730 ms 64.468 ms 52.894 ms 12 176.52.255.218 50.340 ms 52.045 ms 65.218 ms 13 216.184.112.169 > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Luca Muscariello >> wrote: >> > I think the closest scheduler to Cake is this one, if I have to compar= e: >> > >> > https://team.inria.fr/rap/files/2013/12/KOR05.pdf >> >> Try as I might, at workloads that I've been able to create (I did just >> add 10GigE capability to my testbed), it's seemingly nearly impossible >> to have more than a few hundred flows in memory (compared to >> potentially thousands actually active), and it's unclear how to go >> about thinking about it sanely.This tends to point to cake's 8 way set >> associativity as being overkill, but haven't got around to trying >> higher bandwidths, lower target RTTs, or, as I said, higher >> bandwidths. >> >> 'course, while I disagree with this statement in the paper, and do >> care a lot about handling overload sanely, >> >> "In overload, it is necessary to apply per-flow admission control in >> order to preserve good performance for admitted flows. Note that no >> scheduler can avoid drastic performance degradation when offered >> traffic exceeds capacity. PDRR has the advantage of allowing" >> >> I wish I had reasonable proof that what we do in cake is truly sane, >> or had some curve to apply to flows per the available bandwidth. >> >> > >> > J. Roberts et al. Implicit Service Differentiation using Deficit Round >> > Robin, In Proc of ITC 2005. >> > >> > Luca >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Jonathan Morton >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 4 Jan, 2018, at 4:29 pm, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > This popped up in my Google Scholar notifications: >> >> > >> >> > https://atlas.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~menth/papers/Menth18b.pd= f >> >> > >> >> > Basically, they are proposing to permit a queue to accumulate a >> >> > larger >> >> > deficit while empty to allow light users to achieve the same >> >> > throughput >> >> > as heavy users (users being an endpoint with potentially multiple >> >> > flows). >> >> > >> >> > Not sure how useful this really is, but it's somewhat related to >> >> > Cake's >> >> > src/dst user fairness feature, so may be of interest. >> >> >> >> They're trying to solve the same problem as DRR++ does, not the same >> >> one >> >> as Triple Isolation does. >> >> >> >> As a result, they've basically proposed a bugfix to the original DRR >> >> (ie. >> >> you should keep replenishing the deficit until it saturates, even if >> >> the >> >> queue is temporarily empty), without gaining the full benefit of DRR+= +. >> >> >> >> Not interesting at all. >> >> >> >> - Jonathan Morton >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Cake mailing list >> >> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net >> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Cake mailing list >> > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net >> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dave T=C3=A4ht >> CEO, TekLibre, LLC >> http://www.teklibre.com >> Tel: 1-669-226-2619 > > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619