From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com (mail-wr1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (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 945263CB35 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 07:24:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id q18so19458873wrx.9 for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 04:24:19 -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; bh=xIZ2r52qUjOp1Qrt5PFqR4ZlnuGtq6KPqxYbvnR/S7M=; b=f4hljc6Ouo3/EVlAHRqsniA3/aagkycUwsXGGVvGgVweAY4TV5Jalqu2joYXRFfUyy emAFFMiB9WXw5LVunMUKcO/C/gnH1rZPBLTDymsbX64EyRPB95cOF5+FoRRi/ifMsUqp IlDtGNMvLTpzq7heLKlR0wrh5aVRRFm+OMf25NYxuMDDdj3iEfT0tdOVRdX23PusoORD avalsMS6bFfUb8pUiVSoVBfbkpbyEiQTbLQsfOodRo503+So1IbqybIXdKG271l7T0I+ 6t4dzmcvjrnFp8nAnu+GoTbhDj5cZvx+zHQnr6yz2AiORYlx6SWFd+yxTfFAXYBQCxr+ 48Kw== 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; bh=xIZ2r52qUjOp1Qrt5PFqR4ZlnuGtq6KPqxYbvnR/S7M=; b=COyjyQIkR1dwg0EILjmxEZX1yD+lV83cgqfG0NEE9/YlXxgBS1NDnzQvZIvde/vvii vGe8+vRu50IVzUkgCHjYI8RlsIf22DwK45sD08tfs02lMmw8gkvc16y/5wZ2xlNfKBZu Z3dvcjbmJqXmi4/rAYYgf6BjmQeITDRsM2z0MXD8nCL4szpAA31ToysCZzyRKKPFZAPZ ykVMA+X0Vq9D4X+5zO03XR9snocd7fJMk8OG1hJS7FtSPN1W7uUNfcsPpEdZtKncZ6uw DrBwjrkDTneLDYoottduukKPDym/ftNs/BLydyoW1lQcl07vCVUjYyYgqFx/trPpT6tP 1/Gg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWajOIjKYtWHdbLuq2go2D82ZxmhFKu410i6ZjtZO3PaybOWqSjJ pFbhWOPQc15HgtXMdlzxAHS7ySZo/QaZkMFFygA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XvADznBJU6OTBUoTqFCFs22excF7vu/5aK6J4ChbORsYrsRKH3/QU/X7O61aXAcz9ezZfQxNhUVuOhgB4olx4= X-Received: by 2002:adf:92a4:: with SMTP id 33mr5185484wrn.11.1544012658441; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 04:24:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87va4nzsn4.fsf@taht.net> <6578A0D1-FF6A-474E-A6D5-98185F98CB45@gmail.com> <08381337-F99A-46D1-87AF-B0F71A8753BC@gmail.com> <949D58FF-9C2F-4516-8547-20A712EC0C92@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jendaipou Palmei Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 17:53:40 +0530 Message-ID: To: Dave Taht Cc: chromatix99@gmail.com, dave@taht.net, cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000009007c057c4576b3" 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: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:19 -0000 --00000000000009007c057c4576b3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Dave and Jonathan, Thanks for the feedback! We have uploaded the corresponding graphs for reference CoDel. Link: https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Drop-Count-Graph We have also plotted the instantaneous throughput for all flows in Light traffic scenario for COBALT and CoDel. These graphs are plotted for packet size with 1000 bytes and 1500 bytes. Link: https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Throughput-for-Separate-Flow We're currently working on the following: 1. plots for the actual number of marks/drops per time interval for COBALT, CoDel, and PIE. 2. zoomed in plots on small time intervals to show the dynamic behavior of the algorithm. 3. a file showing the timestamp of each drop. About collaborating for writing a paper on this work: we'd be glad to do so :) thanks for your guidance and help! Thanks and regards Jendaipou Palmei Shefali Gupta On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 8:51 PM Dave Taht wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:02 AM Jonathan Morton > wrote: > > > > > On 4 Dec, 2018, at 12:31 pm, Jendaipou Palmei < > jendaipoupalmei@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > We have uploaded the plots for the 'count' variable of COBALT (with a > segment size of 1500 and 1000 bytes). > > > > > > Link: https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Cobalt-Drop-Count > > > > > > We have not yet implemented ECN feature in COBALT, so packets are > currently dropped instead of being marked. > > > > > > Are these the plots that you were referring to? > > > > More-or-less, yes, though these actually show an internal state variabl= e > 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-Code= l > 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, a= nd > 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 fr= om > 0 to 1 count over the several seconds interval between activations, thoug= h > 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 bi= g > difference between reference Codel and COBALT. > > I'm loving the slow start result. > > > > > Another interesting graph to produce for each algorithm and traffic typ= e > is the instantaneous throughput of each flow. This offers insight into t= he > relative fairness of each algorithm, and might help to explain the anomal= y > 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. > > a file showing the timestamp of each drop would be easier to post process= . > > > > > - Jonathan Morton > > > > > -- > > Dave T=C3=A4ht > CTO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-831-205-9740 > --00000000000009007c057c4576b3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Dave and Jonathan,

Tha= nks for the feedback!

We have uploaded the cor= responding graphs for reference CoDel.


We have also plotted the instantaneous throughput for all = flows in Light traffic scenario for COBALT and CoDel.
These graph= s are plotted for packet size with 1000 bytes and 1500 bytes.


We'= re currently working on the following:

1. plots fo= r the actual number of marks/drops per time interval for COBALT, CoDel, and= PIE.
2. zoomed in plots on small time intervals to show the dyna= mic behavior of the algorithm.
3. a file showing the timestamp of= each drop.

About collaborating for writing a = paper on this work: we'd be glad to do so :) thanks for your guidance a= nd help!

Thanks and regards
Jendaipou Pa= lmei
Shefali Gupta

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 8:51 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:02 AM Jonathan Mor= ton <chromati= x99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 4 Dec, 2018, at 12:31 pm, Jendaipou Palmei <jendaipoupalmei@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We have uploaded the plots for the 'count' variable of CO= BALT (with a segment size of 1500 and 1000 bytes).
> >
> > Link: https://github.com/Daipu/COBAL= T/wiki/Cobalt-Drop-Count
> >
> > We have not yet implemented ECN feature in COBALT, so packets are= currently dropped instead of being marked.
> >
> > Are these the plots that you were referring to?
>
> More-or-less, yes, though these actually show an internal state variab= le of the Codel algorithm rather than the actual number of marks/drops per = time interval.=C2=A0 I was hoping to see similar graphs for the reference-C= odel and PIE runs, since we can gain more insight from that, and PIE doesn&= #39;t have an internal "count" variable that corresponds with Cod= el.=C2=A0 Nevertheless, the view into "count" behaviour is intere= sting in itself, and I'd like to see the corresponding graphs from refe= rence Codel.
>
> An artefact visible in these graphs is an apparent lack of sampling wh= ile not in the dropping state.=C2=A0 Thus you seem to have a gradual ramp f= rom 0 to 1 count over the several seconds interval between activations, tho= ugh in fact the variable is discrete.=C2=A0 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 tra= nsition from slow-start to steady-state, where there is seemingly a big dif= ference between reference Codel and COBALT.

I'm loving the slow start result.

>
> Another interesting graph to produce for each algorithm and traffic ty= pe is the instantaneous throughput of each flow.=C2=A0 This offers insight = into the relative fairness of each algorithm, and might help to explain the= anomaly seen with 1000-byte packets and COBALT.=C2=A0 Usually this graph a= lso reveals, through the shape of each throughput curve, which CC algorithm= is in use - currently I'm guessing NewReno.=C2=A0 CUBIC and CTCP, whic= h are also in common use, would behave differently.

a file showing the timestamp of each drop would be easier to post process.<= br>
>
>=C2=A0 - Jonathan Morton
>


--

Dave T=C3=A4ht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
ht= tp://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740
--00000000000009007c057c4576b3--