From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 9C8823B2A4 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 20:34:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id y11so10643791lfj.4 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 17:34:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1rYPOd8gMzv/3QZH4IAmSBE22CPzbIbUu899oP0EMQk=; b=MC+5gRtDVxD+o2rO3N0g1NaNESXJmU21EW2SbGIkCUBn8Xv25ZnHoH+QtfE6kHr6YK XAnFpsRoVTT9Q2SwHNoepAmSlEqHrk4ROtO3/C0ZPDErEbIXZM0wPkZyYJ70NOtw8f0x VIlh0mwT4noebp1JqrJ/c4gPzWNdksCVGF+uInXXqSV2aiBw9Ye26dxaNjO/3xAhu9nC 9O8PBAFxKA4OGqCwg9WaN/Q2iqBwr3UDZUrI79QOP90N66Fn+GLePtWxNGx2UNxm9bx5 24TA2CA3lBxAigiY7BYRHqM/F8SahxwbwhATfuB9oEVKn6BC6aTno6HlxUwzGZsNOcVD eU2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1rYPOd8gMzv/3QZH4IAmSBE22CPzbIbUu899oP0EMQk=; b=ofS3AKsHzs+fKGtX9MD6JoCbcQexCzz19/sbjrEuqffoFVujhPRr+aeA+3dvqjjj34 OSY9X5Sl+RbF9pD7DbfD/yLEuxJgCxC6zZqvp+jCmBVtx4v6P8N+wWqBletl7zJw2Rq3 L24VpVGd1s7a4hC3pwfd9NbF3229opNsHhaSoLM48wvDPDlroIS1NwYM8E4Ay2VAbZn/ iLVLOy/PUAg3NYIz81xuJekpphhBlydNQlTGPDfXvx9MBFCQ8vh7ujs7fhEf8Ue8QjJs WKrNNVlXhBOYcNOJRAwx05zmmoGQdcTpKC3qL0MrfUu6w6kfGCCC4+PBsw8fI4j+QxbM N8Pw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUuke4W+RVDuIXTRp4BIR1e5gWtF9pYwR/8gToRZwXzF/EjI2nPbO/ 9j2m0C83LK3eTeMfXKrwpTy7cYP538jUe/K6Slg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5/uwz/pzRkxhbcvUybtbCN8jEb2G8NaGwuTzNRhqqu3zU4s/S1RtZCo6xfIfnNBO06qsQd/pBpuUgU8rC/+gk= X-Received: by 2002:a19:c396:: with SMTP id t144mr14705189lff.110.1548639291184; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 17:34:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190116033430.8446-1-gamanakis@gmail.com> <000501d4ad4e$24718220$6d548660$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Georgios Amanakis Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 20:34:39 -0500 Message-ID: To: Pete Heist Cc: Cake List , Jonathan Morton , =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] dual-src/dsthost unfairness, only with bi-directional traffic 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: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:34:52 -0000 Thanks for testing Pete! I should note though, that patch is incorrect in terms of triple-isolate. It can be further improved my differentiating between srchost and dsthost. The results are the same nevertheless. The same principle can also be applied to the sparse flows. However, I completely understand Jonathan when he says that this might not be the optimal solution, and perhaps a different model of flow-selection is necessary (e.g. doing exactly what the man page says: first decide based on host priority, and then based on priority among the flows of that host). On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 2:35 AM Pete Heist wrote: > > I ran my original iperf3 test with and without the patch, through my one-= armed router with hfsc+cake on egress each direction at 100Mbit: > > Unpatched: > > IP1 1-flow TCP up: 11.3 > IP2 8-flow TCP up: 90.1 > IP1 8-flow TCP down: 89.8 > IP2 1-flow TCP down: 11.3 > Jain=E2=80=99s fairness index, directional: 0.623 up, 0.631 down > Jain=E2=80=99s fairness index, aggregate: 0.997 > > Patched: > > IP1 1-flow TCP up: 51.0 > IP2 8-flow TCP up: 51.0 > IP1 8-flow TCP down: 50.7 > IP2 1-flow TCP down: 50.6 > Jain=E2=80=99s fairness index, directional: 1.0 up, 0.999 down > Jain=E2=80=99s fairness index, aggregate: 0.999 > > So this confirms George=E2=80=99s result. :) > > Obviously if we look at _aggregate_ fairness it=E2=80=99s essentially the= same in both cases. I think directional fairness is what users would expec= t though. > > Can anyone think of any potentially pathological cases from considering o= nly bulk flows for fairness, that I can test? Otherwise, I=E2=80=99d like t= o see this idea taken in... > > > On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:47 AM, gamanakis@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Of course I pasted the results for IP1 and IP2 the wrong way. Sorry! > > These are the correct results, along with the *.flent.gz files. > > > > IP1: > > flent -H 192.168.1.2 tcp_8down & > > Data file written to ./tcp_8down-2019-01-15T223703.709305.flent.gz. > > Summary of tcp_8down test run at 2019-01-16 03:37:03.709305: > > > > avg median # data pts > > Ping (ms) ICMP : 0.78 0.72 ms 342 > > TCP download avg : 6.03 5.83 Mbits/s 301 > > TCP download sum : 48.24 46.65 Mbits/s 301 > > TCP download::1 : 6.03 5.83 Mbits/s 298 > > TCP download::2 : 6.03 5.83 Mbits/s 297 > > TCP download::3 : 6.03 5.83 Mbits/s 297 > > TCP download::4 : 6.03 5.83 Mbits/s 298 > > TCP download::5 : 6.03 5.83 Mbits/s 298 > > TCP download::6 : 6.03 5.83 Mbits/s 298 > > TCP download::7 : 6.03 5.83 Mbits/s 297 > > TCP download::8 : 6.03 5.83 Mbits/s 298 > > > > > > flent -H 192.168.1.2 tcp_1up & > > Data file written to ./tcp_1up-2019-01-15T223704.711193.flent.gz. > > Summary of tcp_1up test run at 2019-01-16 03:37:04.711193: > > > > avg median # data pts > > Ping (ms) ICMP : 0.79 0.73 ms 342 > > TCP upload : 48.12 46.69 Mbits/s 294 > > > > > > > > IP2: > > flent -H 192.168.1.2 tcp_1down & > > Data file written to ./tcp_1down-2019-01-15T223705.693550.flent.gz. > > Summary of tcp_1down test run at 2019-01-16 03:37:05.693550: > > > > avg median # data pts > > Ping (ms) ICMP : 0.77 0.69 ms 341 > > TCP download : 48.10 46.65 Mbits/s 300 > > > > > > flent -H 192.168.1.2 tcp_8up & > > Data file written to ./tcp_8up-2019-01-15T223706.706614.flent.gz. > > Summary of tcp_8up test run at 2019-01-16 03:37:06.706614: > > > > avg median # data pts > > Ping (ms) ICMP : 0.74 0.70 ms 341 > > TCP upload avg : 6.03 5.83 Mbits/s 301 > > TCP upload sum : 48.25 46.63 Mbits/s 301 > > TCP upload::1 : 6.04 5.86 Mbits/s 226 > > TCP upload::2 : 6.03 5.86 Mbits/s 226 > > TCP upload::3 : 6.03 5.86 Mbits/s 226 > > TCP upload::4 : 6.03 5.86 Mbits/s 225 > > TCP upload::5 : 6.03 5.86 Mbits/s 226 > > TCP upload::6 : 6.03 5.86 Mbits/s 226 > > TCP upload::7 : 6.03 5.78 Mbits/s 220 > > TCP upload::8 : 6.03 5.88 Mbits/s 277 > > > > > > >