From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (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 8CFA83BA8E for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 16:26:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id i40so4268997qti.8 for ; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 13:26:37 -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; bh=vOwMjZ+t6TXYdVroFZiF6hvqIy2oufK13UiO+eSS9SU=; b=ew79T231AbG1Sn3s9POXXkis2AxIKF2qerOz4Fe1oMJLJzFTdU/jwDkxm+6Fy4S8YT rDXM6Jb6SAeFCuV0Ap7rCZCyDvrA2ygZz6zuQea0V3WWriI3AZ2ARvjma5bx2fxaJz2O bPrNifqeoGB0+DnG4sowuL6f1fEt5zxfSySv05fC9JWlT1WwZ6loeV4jO/O7DAekaC40 jZf8ro3FnZfYKrI+ksrBXtXkvqwzcbG5RDBQcfk7G38Xsc+I2COhep+VfgChScC3Zt3T lQ0Ie1kCyxbXkjwLjTvzzNVWK64hdAbQQB/XLgcdRdlZ/rGXBP84w5RNyhkiFTNbFQPk YN6Q== 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; bh=vOwMjZ+t6TXYdVroFZiF6hvqIy2oufK13UiO+eSS9SU=; b=qic+G0hnK+4PRpqDgrZ3+zaXyD79bAl56iYJYl94/DSzmmZY6st6Wrm9mxYNmbXy9F wwlLqRDOxMsORt+hbqEj+PFwYxW+WrWk4Fir5R+V+7LxFbmK7bXeohcIokneWfuJ7WNh 7Y650DzsXvkQSvqYmKMkEc8mGo5mC8XbSEfIDSXQy5Q2JDW3QeCBVyIHFPQZApJvbpEh q1VxlcNby9eumOcARxUNDZVe3rgCUpl6bbOwjGkadk/W1h2yaJwoTvYdngIXxIQB8WMA DuxV8/FgSvlo0NvBGz5gWHBgHCtVOjG7zSG6Y4SwOSazf9KCHzRG6ZbCLyJ14tZ6A10a z3dg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKA2xwRp59kQuw7eMsIlQ9lkmZ6rIEYGRit4q+hBxvQXldDy7VZ zXWtJPvHPUn1uFfnR1KYQi2zTAciZ0WU2i/SRro= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYiVD1ucK+eQ5xpEVxTpX5c43taEBQ+mhwm/PqaTcCFUCL/kVS7OAtB4wButQ2BpBd6q0ZIYlUt1qv0rBZVKAo= X-Received: by 10.200.53.139 with SMTP id k11mr2877171qtb.77.1512509196995; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 13:26:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.95.69 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:26:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.95.69 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:26:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87vahkdgg0.fsf@nemesis.taht.net> References: <1512426648.21759.19.camel@gmail.com> <1512436395.8927.10.camel@gmail.com> <1512445837.3088.2.camel@gmail.com> <87vahkdgg0.fsf@nemesis.taht.net> From: Georgios Amanakis Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 16:26:36 -0500 Message-ID: To: Dave Taht Cc: Jonathan Morton , Cake List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140a8686816e3055f9e7dee" 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 21:26:37 -0000 --001a1140a8686816e3055f9e7dee Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" As a reminder, noticeable loss of throughput occurs only when there are a lot of concurrent flows (>16, on my connection). To my knowledge and testing, ingress mode has been behaving like this from the beginning. On Dec 5, 2017 4:15 PM, "Dave Taht" wrote: > 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 > --001a1140a8686816e3055f9e7dee Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As a reminder, noticeable loss of throughput occurs only = when there are a lot of concurrent flows=C2=A0(>16, on my connection).

To my knowledge and testing, ingress mode has b= een behaving like this from the beginning.

On Dec 5, 2017 4:15 PM, "D= ave Taht" <dave@= taht.net> wrote:
Jonathan Morton <chromatix9= 9@gmail.com> 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.n= et
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake=
--001a1140a8686816e3055f9e7dee--