From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (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 F007C3B29E for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:54:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id c136so1799485qkb.12 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:54:33 -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; bh=wfN1bbFZj4wKybvCsq30oPExSKxVmIXHy8Nw+FgQljw=; b=HGFP7kJfHMS0SfONMBeS7mD6tKBwGTgrEy5DuuM2CUVWhAlPri93bheRLFRgjFgchh zv4YjsFHsOChb8ZCSzoT3ldAVqSKBqthicmL9H4ukTbxB7ZzjTgKORHHoCU3wkybh4hd KPKPjbsEH6+BA8Eo2tDmXaZsh7TK2Ti9KYcfrE4HxLHPVNQiNQvvO2JjHR9AgIzwpjym McIVz3wVbH4DVOkqFbgtOC6dhT3vyAhs+sn7fJMe2qYzTOmSa7d1x6mlptm8s1MzDaSw NB/daxmq0LggD+4rVyN+LMWqTDFMyKd3U/AewzGbTvr4Gh2WSM5mzxuv2B4PPLt0kbFl 7z/g== 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=wfN1bbFZj4wKybvCsq30oPExSKxVmIXHy8Nw+FgQljw=; b=iwlht7Ob6zW5dYfoJQW1NGFwxofC9wgAVTwCrrgHB401GUhqs95fPQnCma4g+714Bu gFle8TAwBrR7yh9ZmHm1pPkyGVc1YBiHwvBBEBpuu0sFtD04TOatAlC4dY7IfMAsFq02 +sK3Ez4TGx7ar3HvpERmhygedh6tRGMN4OsIq042dYMYtMY9khCntViePDJ7MvbBayob YvqEPloN8gIZJqbgZ8sXfiIC5epAdMN9qjNhdqjE9kVxVpy0/4PFsoIjUG3Ad9s9xLfG mnYD8wtbNgFR5qMjlZg1kitx8PwIHTMulR4txlOBeXqs2sRNTP8cT2Fw5Fw0moSmNFFZ 1ZAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCh51n6NI78bBO4KLvysI+qPv+wbtVWEcszdfkaRBstZpi1qWuP DwqqBsejaCY6Rt4RYiZhDgdiDnuK0TlsXiVZgCg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49MY31o1ZZXt/fWSeVOMv1/jNuW4x/9cvFropEToM9NjPFlG5E+zKRNoNzRyITkvcujpTeZ1roF2S+kbVpQBtQ= X-Received: by 10.55.136.3 with SMTP id k3mr2595178qkd.126.1523976873410; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:54:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.209.134 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <871sfd52q6.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87vacq419h.fsf@toke.dk> <87sh7u3yoa.fsf@toke.dk> <87muy23tvg.fsf@toke.dk> <871sfd52q6.fsf@toke.dk> From: Luca Muscariello Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 16:54:32 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Cc: Y , Cake List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c072efa2f865b056a0c84dd" 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: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:54:34 -0000 --94eb2c072efa2f865b056a0c84dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I will check that later, still unsure. First guess: the quantum component should influence only how close to a fluid bit-wise approximation you are. So cake gets closer by automatic adjustment. The computation of the correction factor should be done by computing the probability that a packet of a sparse flow loses priority because of the quantum. Bad setting, higher probability, ideal setting 0 probability. So your formula seems still wrong to me... On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > Luca Muscariello writes: > > > I'm not sure that the quantum correction factor is correct. > > No, you're right, there's an off-by-one error. It should be: > > R_s < R / ((L/L_s)(N+1) + 1) > > -Toke > --94eb2c072efa2f865b056a0c84dd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I will check that later, still unsure.

= First guess: the quantum component should influence only how close to a flu= id bit-wise approximation you are.
So cake gets closer by automat= ic adjustment.

The computation of the correction f= actor should be done by computing the probability that a packet
o= f a sparse flow loses priority because of the quantum. Bad setting, higher = probability, ideal setting 0 probability.

So your = formula seems still wrong to me...=C2=A0


On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4= :25 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
Luca Muscariello <luca.muscariello@gmail.com>= writes:

> I'm not sure that the quantum correction factor is correct.

No, you're right, there's an off-by-one error. It should be:=

R_s < R / ((L/L_s)(N+1) + 1)

-Toke

--94eb2c072efa2f865b056a0c84dd--