From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david@lang.hm>
Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (lang.hm [66.167.227.134])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B72473CB35
 for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:53:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100])
 by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id w3IJrfoQ010300;
 Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:53:41 -0700
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
cc: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>,
 cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
In-Reply-To: <5BD20E12-2408-4393-8560-3FDA52D86DB3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1804181253030.28292@nftneq.ynat.uz>
References: <87vacq419h.fsf@toke.dk>
 <C0095700-7A65-4259-84E5-C3A113608D96@gmail.com> <874lk9533l.fsf@toke.dk>
 <87604o3get.fsf@toke.dk> <578552B2-5127-451A-AFE8-93AE9BB07368@gmail.com>
 <87r2nc1taq.fsf@toke.dk> <FCA9E4F3-EA5C-4223-BA23-771C993867AF@gmail.com>
 <0BB8B1FD-6A00-49D6-806E-794BD53A449F@gmx.de>
 <3457DD8E-0292-4802-BD1E-B37771DCADA2@gmail.com> <87fu3s1om2.fsf@toke.dk>
 <5BD20E12-2408-4393-8560-3FDA52D86DB3@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results
X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation <cake.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cake>,
 <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cake>
List-Post: <mailto:cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake>,
 <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 19:53:45 -0000

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Jonathan Morton wrote:

> I'm saying that there's a tradeoff between intra-flow induced latency and packet loss, and I've chosen 4 MTUs as the operating point.

Is there a reason for picking 4 MTUs vs 2 MTUs vs 2 packets, etc?