From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (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 40A403CB35 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:25:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id g7so2391896qkm.1 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:25:29 -0700 (PDT) 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=rtiXHxrY7sM3wnJSqIWZ3etoyaQczHBVsB4NEBcrMfM=; b=dt74UvT/k/rHMK8D0PTBE/0Lzdlb6mCBq60EUrA3CdJZzebELbf2bfOEdU3lAbnUyR xfqash7KPMxQ+u3L9qcgU++o7KwXP/ujf/j5JANK8xLi8jGal1xvdhkTK54l56Vk9zov 2AeyJEwM0W1+vy3h/T8L+91/fihXCDtr4gOIsrDgDXtqtws9KlurgxnOs78M3Jrj2gbx gXwFZQTr6MFv0E0AsniaUKPZEoL2frksWFIDwFXHAn0ZGOXT9U8bchG0RWuEnvdZj+ma zhNzNom8vLodQwfK3h/GAgAj9egQBjG8kp3QyGpPTUqiwvFBJmCeTC3eocpNVEiD6go2 k19A== 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=rtiXHxrY7sM3wnJSqIWZ3etoyaQczHBVsB4NEBcrMfM=; b=jNwHqTrhPpsD4BAtPvNqw5WCw/k+9aa/jdfHAr098ccnCWzOcqGJ+B3DAg8/gCzk/E 7V3UQpZDAU33uIiXmlBcBbuBmV7RxvVv5kcCynUNo7EskZIyLeKvH6rmnNRuGfFV/Duh mOrr9xMMnijoE9C+bQQxORjEFXJbAp9FQCeJBHNd5z4iKimuGUY8qWth5fTohOGHxwAy /LoHYdoLlH9c0bjmAkayKJRbJbUMGHkZqkvjuQSIUqcHbeoZGxWqTbTgeKQCfkZe0Osv VPETwHkHGXPW+vaAgzrMXuj+2SfAephevBLa5McGrJG5Tmed/Gg1TPJ2gundbnc9nBkZ TlDA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCR3FEstTYxpVcFFIlZt9SHCO1TJesN0RBWU3BHAKOa8+Avxj0K zoFsHEKSojkL0wB1nn7mTViuR9Gv6XrgPB6RmgY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZq6BJqYsMXpHpWeJv6ACgNswulf1ymLAlcyheBeZcBUFs6Dc/R8BGb2F01NFcg3gkjv8TQkcvHkztHyhyjIGsM= X-Received: by 10.233.232.88 with SMTP id a85mr2573444qkg.121.1524068728772; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:25:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.148.218 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:25:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87fu3s1om2.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87vacq419h.fsf@toke.dk> <874lk9533l.fsf@toke.dk> <87604o3get.fsf@toke.dk> <578552B2-5127-451A-AFE8-93AE9BB07368@gmail.com> <87r2nc1taq.fsf@toke.dk> <0BB8B1FD-6A00-49D6-806E-794BD53A449F@gmx.de> <3457DD8E-0292-4802-BD1E-B37771DCADA2@gmail.com> <87fu3s1om2.fsf@toke.dk> From: Dave Taht Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:25:27 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Cc: Jonathan Morton , Sebastian Moeller , Cake List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results 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: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:25:29 -0000 I would like to revert this change. On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > Jonathan Morton writes: > >>> On 18 Apr, 2018, at 6:17 pm, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >>> >>> Just a thought, in egress mode in the typical deployment we expect, >>> the bandwidth leading into cake will be >> than the bandwidth out of >>> cake, so I would argue that the package droppage might be acceptable >>> on egress as there is bandwidth to "waste" while on ingress the issue >>> very much is that all packets cake sees already used up parts of the >>> limited transfer time on the bottleneck link and hence are more >>> "precious", no? Users wanting this new behavior could still use the >>> ingress keyword even on egress interfaces? >> >> Broadly speaking, that should indeed counter most of the negative >> effects you'd expect from disabling this tweak in egress mode. But it >> doesn't really answer the question of whether there's a compelling >> *positive* reason to do so. I want to see a use case that holds up. > > What you're saying here is that you basically don't believe there are > any applications where a bulk TCP flow would also want low queueing > latency? :) > > -Toke > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619