From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com (mail-lf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (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 137633B260 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:33:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id y21so21174146lfa.1 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:33:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/qn0QUQy9EGAUs5wyCtcrCPwdJmhZUWq3mr+/96vNIY=; b=fEjchIs4Xual2zA/i2sV8xycvqugPCf8f57zoO1FreJAEHHIemQQ04RsMmKjP+ZZ3k Vsyp1cqPBy/uQGhcr2shJT0loIcYJ4IBk9F+6X8hdKUIxsJjYjikl+1equiT7+2neFij 3c7TAZVLH0YvL17O1DX25wP5QB70oDyemYdqiK4ylaT5duzjwSvF1ik0bcW3hLlH/UVe lhY0aLIY+TEkfeL0CKQ2MkHOyrJ9B5b6cGQm/rqJ2+l6NLg9Je3Jyxes/MNkWSpgU6TP rG0nBbxwVnTkah4iVvHays/d6Xym8+gd9zRdcndLyisGJhzVA2ZuURqZf4hlf5eZqYb2 qMsw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/qn0QUQy9EGAUs5wyCtcrCPwdJmhZUWq3mr+/96vNIY=; b=OqGCUSEMtMEY/MbsrywT8BszMs180O21FZutaKxVGuTH8kspw1zJrIIc0gycSPQTEz Imdgk9g9ETLzlIAuwCyZlsOJ5jlg+NHTm7qeezKTGIpubV/9IwdaFbyss6sclcZobjj3 PEoOH/AGmHbkN5btM6P5MDNbKCJMMk5HII7EOYeBQezOerXsoAXBn/W6bHoag6b1OS+2 KtjQ9+9xN6wntco98xTmYJTwrDbkzQNiSPFJ4jjcbCIZqx3ZPRClQPYcIad8LPC/HnzX rY42oL6S7cN1DgxcvZ4YPwDLfEBOBBsbqLveMGCJ7YUUDTyItwbBloPnBPEQoGLubLaG jTZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01uQ3+o8bALuz7JUP6hmzrw/MDyTdCuol933ESY8G5q8DLQeONGbB2qQun4nVaQ0m83wRzcb//7jGGVcA== X-Received: by 10.25.74.85 with SMTP id x82mr25238518lfa.154.1481398416788; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:33:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.198.212 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:33:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.198.212 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:33:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1462124589.1190968.1481310707746@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1462124589.1190968.1481310707746.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1462124589.1190968.1481310707746@mail.yahoo.com> From: Benjamin Cronce Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 13:33:35 -0600 Message-ID: To: George Amanakis Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1a088067541e054352f21c Subject: Re: [Cake] WAN ingress rate with concurrent downloads 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: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 19:33:38 -0000 --94eb2c1a088067541e054352f21c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It sounds like the sender has a buffer bloat issue. I see the same thing with bittorrent and tcp. If I rate limit my 150mb connection to 100mb, I will see about 30-40mb of retransmissions, for a total of ~135mb of ingress. Even though I limit only to 100mb. If I trace route the offending senders, I always see a 3000ms+ ping 1-2 hops before I reach them. Tcp treats the buffer bloat as packet loss, flooding the receiver. On Dec 9, 2016 1:20 PM, "George Amanakis" wrote: > Dear All, > > regarding the issue about WAN ingress rate with many concurrent TCP > downloads, it seems that all the excess ingress rate on the WAN interface > are TCP retransmission packets (Wireshark). After the latest commit 78ff814 > in cobalt, ping times while using TCP BitTorrent improved from ~1000ms to > ~300ms (concurrent connections 55). If I reduce the concurrent connections > to 30 I get ping times lower than 70ms. > > Best regards, > George > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake > --94eb2c1a088067541e054352f21c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It sounds like the sender has a buffer bloat issue. I see= the same thing with bittorrent and tcp. If I rate limit my 150mb connectio= n to 100mb, I will see about 30-40mb of retransmissions, for a total of ~13= 5mb of ingress. Even though I limit only to 100mb.

If I trace route the offending senders, I always see a= 3000ms+ ping 1-2 hops before I reach them.=C2=A0
Tcp treats the buffer bloat as packet loss, flood= ing the receiver.=C2=A0

On Dec 9, 2016 1:20 PM, "George Amanakis" <<= a href=3D"mailto:g_amanakis@yahoo.com">g_amanakis@yahoo.com> wrote:<= br type=3D"attribution">
Dear All,

regarding the issue about WAN ingress rate with many concurrent TCP downloa= ds, it seems that all the excess ingress rate on the WAN interface are TCP = retransmission packets (Wireshark). After the latest commit 78ff814 in coba= lt, ping times while using TCP BitTorrent improved from ~1000ms to ~300ms (= concurrent connections 55). If I reduce the concurrent connections to 30 I = get ping times lower than 70ms.

Best regards,
George
_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
--94eb2c1a088067541e054352f21c--