From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-x235.google.com (mail-wr0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::235]) (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 4C6733B2A3 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 06:12:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-x235.google.com with SMTP id z61so5818770wrc.1 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:12:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5mIChJML0TK3t6Y27nK5eSoijD8p82H/EH4a6w6Qd0k=; b=sN3n6gG2GwLz7CqILrtes89Cnapoi7vCHkqYKIHCs5Xf53mDmXXFnRT0P7NVgcqyLQ kKivVwcpZHAmWSaABIT6lwu1uAs6p6NDVMdTaZOGZNJogYBL+J6Bb6CAxTFb41MTwShb XRXRVbM+FzPnwqiYVp/QyQlIfFdZELRPD8grsNJk9hla1Gx1XpIk1Myg3DeVpBpWp6hP hzZuixA/sW1BeaCyxx7IpnE/asi4hEoOGevIUkVdpctqoqvQcErojgaEtGDphri4VzBu LWbxOlNmmPh2Wc243HdRIJw0+VVMy4Se1gLkTIT909EAdjMuepqylhHUUXwEkAblCQzD IEzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5mIChJML0TK3t6Y27nK5eSoijD8p82H/EH4a6w6Qd0k=; b=DU5AQl4EARIGZEVA3HyWdIIPOSfSIHK/CSkp5g7tZTjAnUj782zYe7jhUQ3uGxL9jT sYGP5Gvsz3s2DK9b/AYccQlKDWrdcDEvkPSfsDWkIOrjL5uG8mmqCVUwHZJ5pMq5D8nk yrPeBBZm/BMkAuepAzi5jt6hJIAtvA7J2Yl2pjZQ1kxxq0BZu0mhpf2O9utYfzQD19qI Zw4QoPysKFynjb3svlNKkNdSICZivdMBsAR/UkayXtWmg3YRMTReZbwd35BA5Ihb337p rKWHRWK4/jmG3XPCc1Nx146TTax7HOHAuL6+UA/aGJRe/F04uOM6PAt7X9o1fMVD7Drm pbtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n0FkMCrEKOaYql1CDu61e6FxXjI8Dcbf2use0Q87qxlqcrVZqqAof7dEyP/d5Ywg== X-Received: by 10.223.173.148 with SMTP id w20mr22302076wrc.164.1487761946314; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.72.0.41] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j80sm1649638wmd.14.2017.02.22.03.12.25 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:12:25 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Pete Heist In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:12:24 +0100 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] diffserv3 tin 2 target 50% of interval? 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, 22 Feb 2017 11:12:27 -0000 > On Feb 22, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Jonathan Morton = wrote: >=20 >> ... =E2=80=98interval' should generally remain at 100ms and that = =E2=80=98target' should be computed at around 5-10% of interval, and = preferably closer to 5%. >=20 >> Is there a justification for setting the interval outside the = guidelines suggested by CoDel=E2=80=99s authors? >=20 > The interval is reduced on Tin 2 because it is intended for = latency-sensitive traffic, which merits a more aggressive AQM response = than for best-effort traffic, which tends to be more = throughput-sensitive. This has the happy side-effect of giving an = additional incentive to not use latency-sensitive DSCPs for bulk = traffic. >=20 > It looks like you still aren=E2=80=99t using the latest version of tc, = as that identifies the three tins as =E2=80=9CBulk=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9CBest= Effort=E2=80=9D, and =E2=80=9CVoice=E2=80=9D, rather than numerically. Ok, but for what it=E2=80=99s worth, so far I=E2=80=99m not seeing this = confer any benefit as far as latency is concerned. I will make full = results available later, but for now, here are two plots for the rrul = test for diffserv3 and diffserv4, Cake on egress at 50Mbit between two = Ethernet connected routers (no Wi-Fi): = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/diffserv/rrul-rrul_cake_fd_50mbit-all_sc= aled.png (diffserv3) = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/diffserv/rrul-rrul_cake_fd_50mbit_diffse= rv4-all_scaled.png (diffserv4) Comparing the steady state portions of the plots for latency, they=E2=80=99= re pretty much identical. Also, shouldn't the EF flow (expedited forwarding) show lower latencies = than BE (best effort)? As for tc, I=E2=80=99m using the latest source from = git://kau.toke.dk/cake/iproute2/, as per = https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Cake/. Shouldn't that be = the latest or should I get it from somewhere else? Pete