Re: [Cake] COBALT implementation in ns-3 with results under different traffic scenarios

[Shefali Gupta <shefaligups11@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4579 bytes --]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the feedback.

We will check with the maintainer of traffic-control module in ns-3 about
the correctness of BQL, and also try to obtain plots that show the steady
state behaviour as you suggested.

In the meantime, we have added the following plots to our wiki:

1. Number of packet drops per time interval

Link:
https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Proactive-Drop-Count-per-time-interval-graphs

2. A file showing the timestamp of each drop

Link: https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Drop-Timestamp-Files

I believe our advisor might have already communicated with you and Jonathan
for the timings of the videoconference.

Thanks and Regards,
Shefali Gupta
Jendaipou Palmei

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:40 AM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for doing this. I'm now unconvinced the BQL emulation in NS3 is
> accurate.
>
> Loved the combined graphs! While it is important to capture that initial
> load spike and indeed, draw it out in the paper, being able to see a bit
> more detail in steady state would be good. So showing T-0 -> T-3 and T-3
> forward would let you use different scales for each.
>
> I'd kind of like to take a step back and try to construct a paper out of
> this that could be published at
> usenix or acm next year. It's getting towards the holidays but would y'all
> (and your advisor(s)) be available to meet via videoconference sometime
> next week? I'm in california, jonathon - somewhere in europe - so that
> might be hard.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 11:06 AM Shefali Gupta <shefaligups11@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Jonathan,
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> As suggested, we have produced CoDel and PIE graphs with small NIC buffer
>> and uploaded the corresponding graphs.
>>
>> Link:
>> https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Link-Utilization-Graphs-with-Different-NetDeviceQueue-size
>>
>> We have also uploaded one way end-to-end dela*y* graphs in Light traffic
>> scenario for CoDel, COBALT and PIE.
>> Link: https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/End-To-End-Delay-Graphs
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your help. We really appreciate it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Shefali Gupta
>> Jendaipou Palme
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:45 PM Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > On 10 Dec, 2018, at 2:30 pm, Jendaipou Palmei <
>>> jendaipoupalmei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > As suggested, we changed the NIC buffer size to 1 packet for the
>>> simulation and also tried these different buffer sizes: 10, 50 and 75.
>>> >
>>> > The default NIC buffer size in ns-3 is 100 packets.
>>> >
>>> > Additionally, we also enabled BQL and tried.
>>> >
>>> > We see that the link utilization gets significantly affected when we
>>> keep the NIC buffer size small.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's what I'd expect to see from Reno-type congestion control,
>>> and is one good reason why alternatives to Reno were developed (eg.
>>> Compound, CUBIC, BBR).  You may wish to explore what happens with Compound
>>> and CUBIC, once your basic measurement methodology has matured.
>>>
>>> I would suggest using BQL, since it's available and represents a
>>> realistic deployment.
>>>
>>> If you were to add TCP (or parallel UDP/ICMP) RTT measurements, you'd
>>> see that the peak latency was correspondingly improved by removing the dumb
>>> FIFO hidden within the NIC.  I estimate that a 100-packet buffer accounts
>>> for about 120ms of latency at 10Mbps, which should definitely be visible on
>>> such a graph (being almost 250% of your baseline 50ms latency).
>>>
>>> Since latency is the main point of adding AQM, I'm a little surprised
>>> that you haven't already produced graphs of that sort.  They would have
>>> identified this problem much earlier.
>>>
>>> At present you only have COBALT graphs with the small NIC buffer.  For a
>>> fair comparison, Codel and PIE graphs should be (re-)produced with the same
>>> conditions.  The older graphs made with the large NIC buffer are
>>> potentially misleading, especially with respect to throughput.
>>>
>>>  - 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 Täht
> CTO, TekLibre, LLC
> http://www.teklibre.com
> Tel: 1-831-205-9740
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7488 bytes --]