From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (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 DD51F3B29E for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 06:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id f14so25587440wrg.1 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 03:55:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heistp.net; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Gh08z2LrRvw5j3LDls/XECpAoBhuKoRnr4uoMofkgK0=; b=PfkvxAwC/G9UlkVkUjo22RxTMW+xZJvS9ePrpOhRgGVXf13TOHGxc3VCyoPLEMRLIU M6dH5+xRW/SJ7w0F9q1ZD5FWeRePls/8qv6JIIql6Fw0Mpx5V5yaLKxO11/Su981LGSQ iE/T6zQa9jP1a4mUaRGGrf5PBGNs/W/AQFyXHLpNPchLGhmdQc08T0lyHzuhv7bRkf/y Aw3+FYqSaYH11hok5IAj85SAM1z6qnyLybl+5MCdOiR+g+WgGmm2/7p1vMiNEtos7BkD Nas6/8OciZdwKJQp0AH5mSY4SApAlLciMEKrVyzTRljxU7/hmLFJay1kUg6ItnCidOKu Swjw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Gh08z2LrRvw5j3LDls/XECpAoBhuKoRnr4uoMofkgK0=; b=GpeygRAjrKbuRrnNTIckocjYdtGgOv2TDtV5JwfNh2A1ZqL5AZ2E19KN9QEf6uCglC 2w+7stILdDSpysF5eS3yHe9x3n/VFDSxV7KQ76zrR+cPBlcKQlOPwzTlWHvIzZKQxl/R mMwjBTkCdOtXj+vG5bBBARRE8BJUXlnJfHG/N52OH1T/EoRSbV3RTVGUBXlUHitQPxxQ eZcRjcF6vXlxPJO+Y/QoI0gNQWz17AXNqJht11vr2K9G02FrQl4InX6Y+LweUDOifxDj +dP5TzQa1eNGp/N/9PDA+EbLqeQJRb5q3FYx8eYvMZC1zwjNckn57qc3CaeOcajiu+p4 ugkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV+zwBQVomR42nnK9N6+mVC+mNF8OyXzwd0qEDnLvazdeWJSzui T5vnfdy19KM0rfIV3OSoqEbiktoyce0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzw7cwwavqDkBItWi57azFPjt7s9SfGxC5Z0LgW5nxmw7tsvoH0w5koK+3YzrKEjoDiQl6MkA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:90af:: with SMTP id i44mr3084680wri.222.1551441307822; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 03:55:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tron.luk.heistp.net (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.193.85.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d24sm50946883wrb.47.2019.03.01.03.55.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Mar 2019 03:55:07 -0800 (PST) From: Pete Heist Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AE948653-91A8-4784-913C-474A90FE6272" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 12:55:05 +0100 In-Reply-To: <874l8mn9iy.fsf@toke.dk> Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net To: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= References: <72193310-7502-47B8-9554-7F8F9FA23204@heistp.net> <874l8mn9iy.fsf@toke.dk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Subject: Re: [Cake] Upstream submission of dual-mode fairness patch 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: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 11:55:09 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AE948653-91A8-4784-913C-474A90FE6272 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Mar 1, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen = wrote: >=20 > Pete Heist > writes: >=20 >> That said, unless there=E2=80=99s an obvious reason for this that=E2=80= =99s fixable, >> I=E2=80=99m fine with how it is, considering the improvement. :) >=20 > Cool! And you haven't seen any regressions in other usage? :) To be honest, today=E2=80=99s the first time I tried it and I haven=E2=80=99= t done any testing on it beyond fairness. (So, ship it!) At least, I haven=E2=80=99t seen any other problems in this one-armed = routing scenario or a regular host to host scenario. Host fairness seems =E2=80=9Cmostly good" no matter what values I choose = for the number of flows of the four clients, flow fairness still looks = good, and I don=E2=80=99t see any problems starting and stopping = different numbers of flows mid-test. Pete --Apple-Mail=_AE948653-91A8-4784-913C-474A90FE6272 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On = Mar 1, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen <toke@toke.dk> = wrote:

Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> writes:

That = said, unless there=E2=80=99s an obvious reason for this that=E2=80=99s = fixable,
I=E2=80=99m fine with how it is, considering the = improvement. :)

Cool! And you haven't seen any regressions in other usage? = :)

To be honest, today=E2=80=99s the first time I tried it and I = haven=E2=80=99t done any testing on it beyond fairness. (So, ship = it!)

At least, = I haven=E2=80=99t seen any other problems in this one-armed routing = scenario or a regular host to host scenario.

Host fairness seems =E2=80=9Cmostly = good" no matter what values I choose for the number of flows of the four = clients, flow fairness still looks good, and I don=E2=80=99t see any = problems starting and stopping different numbers of flows = mid-test.

Pete

= --Apple-Mail=_AE948653-91A8-4784-913C-474A90FE6272--