From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from omr2.cc.vt.edu (omr2.cc.ipv6.vt.edu [IPv6:2607:b400:92:8400:0:33:fb76:806e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 881173B2A0 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:31:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mr2.cc.vt.edu (mr2.cc.ipv6.vt.edu [IPv6:2001:468:c80:2105:0:212:7ed0:359e]) by omr2.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u57MVY7A021592; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:31:34 -0400 Received: from auth1.smtp.vt.edu (auth1.smtp.vt.edu [198.82.161.152] (may be forged)) by mr2.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u57MVYlv023862; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:31:34 -0400 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([IPv6:2001:468:c80:2103:397b:15a6:33a9:f1f5]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth1.smtp.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u57MVYUh026975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:31:34 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 with nmh-1.6+dev To: Eric Johansson Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu In-Reply-To: <55fdf513-9c54-bea9-1f53-fe2c5229d7ba@eggo.org> References: <55fdf513-9c54-bea9-1f53-fe2c5229d7ba@eggo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1465338694_1988P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:31:34 -0400 Message-ID: <45769.1465338694@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mr2.cc.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] trying to make sense of what switch vendors say wrt buffer bloat X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 22:31:39 -0000 --==_Exmh_1465338694_1988P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:29:38 -0400, Eric Johansson said: > Buffer bloat was a relevant on 10/100M switches, not 10Gb switches. At > 10Gb we can empty the queue in ~100ms The users we've got on 10Gb ports complain when their RTT hits 10ms. (And we've got plenty of boxes hanging on 40Gb ports. Not routers, servers. Fun fun fun) --==_Exmh_1465338694_1988P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iQIVAwUBV1dLRQdmEQWDXROgAQIgcg/9FLIfZCgElOHMhzGkXz332cjixO7344D1 QVW+XquPT9xgqiMpuCyoUTGtrkXQD78zFkxFMlgp//WkcsLb7pTMNZH/1pGugpHG BsOr077ZnmEbEG27UIS35w0kn+BnjUa++5dkpG504bJfub8WeJQc30VFJ3m84lLw 8gKVIrpYgj+uvMJDFsmOytJUl/cKg6cZnl6LRZnlEf2Y21DLQY58QE9SmKGaTku1 w/m1EofUszZp4FwzYGdFb3DuNAyTFrs9TBE0DgZ537IyoynLPTcyusuM9uF/WQlW TOBR9v6kKgxpzKHYpnnBEk47l472OKP678lyoJYvuVbY8BmQFroNWA4pcTbNil1u 25nH8U6HRehe6S42Y1MZfjHdH+Hf5zxFEE908YKY4l++b+tIxlTN1g4DCC2ABFmn I06CMiMK1QRKoT8emYY0pHEjHwJpR0PtOSAkUd21aO8iU6438anf04BvMsO8OFtH rvD1CM63TniEPdqpsrUe5EB4Wy+XtxYvaocmosFnGnEKLRldYoZvMgZCpA+yjV00 je43LWraE0fJhODUVgW82tZf6jDdqC8dXBt8FOlbAAMZ5Zzr78uVX5PjW6jmP8J1 T9ZThbfmjeC7sRrzWjjd509GWD3Rx+vMGp5978lokb9dEfJRTETPmrLKp/3x6N0c WJm8gaVfYso= =wXaF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1465338694_1988P--