From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: Luca Muscariello <luca.muscariello@gmail.com>,
Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 12:55:37 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <F6B529C2-26CE-4C7D-BFF9-CEEFE3A21829@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87y3hjzgvz.fsf@toke.dk>
>>> your solution significantly hurts performance in the common case
>>
>> I'm sorry - did someone actually describe such a case? I must have
>> missed it.
>
> I started this whole thread by pointing out that this behaviour results
> in the delay of the TCP flows scaling with the number of active flows;
> and that for 32 active flows (on a 10Mbps link), this results in the
> latency being three times higher than for FQ-CoDel on the same link.
Okay, so intra-flow latency is impaired for bulk flows sharing a relatively low-bandwidth link. That's a metric which few people even know how to measure for bulk flows, though it is of course important for sparse flows. I was hoping you had a common use-case where *sparse* flow latency was impacted, in which case we could actually discuss it properly.
But *inter-flow* latency is not impaired, is it? Nor intra-sparse-flow latency? Nor packet loss, which people often do measure (or at least talk about measuring) - quite the opposite? Nor goodput, which people *definitely* measure and notice, and is influenced more strongly by packet loss when in ingress mode?
The measurement you took had a baseline latency in the region of 60ms. That's high enough for a couple of packets per flow to be in flight independently of the bottleneck queue. Therefore, the most severe effects of fq_codel's configuration (and Cake's old configuration) are less obvious, since TCP is still kept operating in a regime where its behaviour is vaguely acceptable. Aggregate goodput remains high anyway, due to the large number of flows involved, but I would expect the goodput of individual flows to show odd behaviour under fq_codel.
I would take this argument more seriously if a use-case that mattered was identified. So far, I can't even see a coherent argument for making this tweak optional (which is of course possible), let alone removing it entirely; we only have a single synthetic benchmark which shows one obscure metric move in the "wrong" direction, versus a real use-case identified by an actual user in which this configuration genuinely helps.
And I've tried to explain why I believe this to be the Right Thing to do in general, contrary to Dave's opinion.
- Jonathan Morton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-19 9:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-17 9:42 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-17 10:04 ` Luca Muscariello
2018-04-17 10:38 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-17 12:05 ` Y
[not found] ` <mailman.225.1523966725.3573.cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
2018-04-17 12:22 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-17 13:16 ` Jonas Mårtensson
2018-04-17 13:50 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-17 13:47 ` Luca Muscariello
2018-04-17 13:52 ` Luca Muscariello
2018-04-17 14:25 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-17 14:54 ` Luca Muscariello
2018-04-17 15:10 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-17 14:03 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-17 14:17 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-18 11:25 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-18 12:21 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2018-04-18 12:57 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-18 13:13 ` Jonas Mårtensson
2018-04-18 13:21 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-18 14:12 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-18 14:30 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-18 15:03 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-18 15:17 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-04-18 15:58 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-18 16:11 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-18 16:25 ` Dave Taht
2018-04-18 16:34 ` Georgios Amanakis
2018-04-18 17:10 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-04-19 7:49 ` Luca Muscariello
2018-04-19 8:11 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-19 9:00 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-19 9:21 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-19 9:26 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-19 9:55 ` Jonathan Morton [this message]
2018-04-19 10:33 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-19 11:55 ` Luca Muscariello
2018-04-18 16:54 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-18 17:02 ` Dave Taht
2018-04-18 18:06 ` Jonas Mårtensson
2018-04-18 18:11 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-18 18:16 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
[not found] ` <mailman.238.1524075384.3573.cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
2018-04-19 8:31 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2018-04-18 18:11 ` Jonas Mårtensson
2018-04-18 19:53 ` David Lang
2018-04-18 21:53 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-19 9:22 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-19 9:32 ` Jonathan Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cake.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=F6B529C2-26CE-4C7D-BFF9-CEEFE3A21829@gmail.com \
--to=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=luca.muscariello@gmail.com \
--cc=toke@toke.dk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox