From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] Testing variants of the MTU latency scaling
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:09:54 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <FCA166BC-2EB1-4EA1-A9CF-4C4CE5A4D46E@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a7tv3r5z.fsf@toke.dk>
> Takeaways (see attached plots):
>
> - The MTU scaling does indeed give a nice benefit in egress mode
> "tcp-download-totals" plot. From just over 6 Mbps to just over 8 Mbps
> of goodput on the 10 Mbit link. There is not a large difference
> between 2MTU and 4MTU, except that 4MTU hurts inter-flow latency
> somewhat.
>
> - The effect for upload flows (where Cake is before the bottleneck;
> 10mbit-upload.png) is negligible.
>
> - The MTU scaling really hurts TCP RTT (intra-flow latency;
> tcp-upload-tcprtt-10mbit.png and rrul-tcprtt.png).
>
> - For bidirectional traffic the combined effect is also negligible.
>
>
> Based on all this, I propose we change the scaling mechanism so that it
> is only active in egress mode, and change it from 4 MTUs to 2. I'll
> merge Kevin's patch to do this unless someone complains loudly :)
>
> If you want me to run other tests, let me know.
I'm not actually sure what you've measured here - unless you've somehow managed to swap "ingress" with "egress" mode in a strange manner. I don't see any systematic measurement of the different MTU scales in ingress mode in your results, which makes your assertion that it should only be active in egress mode rather odd.
- Jonathan Morton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-22 21:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-22 20:46 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-22 21:09 ` Jonathan Morton [this message]
2018-04-22 21:31 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-23 11:23 ` Jonas Mårtensson
2018-04-24 11:45 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-24 19:04 ` Jonas Mårtensson
2018-04-24 19:22 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2018-04-24 20:27 ` Jonas Mårtensson
2018-04-24 21:11 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-04-23 9:52 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-23 10:13 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-23 10:50 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-24 8:11 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2018-04-24 8:14 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-04-24 8:29 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
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=FCA166BC-2EB1-4EA1-A9CF-4C4CE5A4D46E@gmail.com \
--to=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--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