From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Soltysiak <maciej@soltysiak.com>
Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
<cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] uplink_buffer_adjustment
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:19:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54AF617E-908B-444A-B424-076795446363@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZR1YDj1agLvJfsj8bAvuzxr1NRhsWh5C7Q+S+DryhxLEwTDg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Maciej,
On Feb 25, 2014, at 15:05 , Maciej Soltysiak <maciej@soltysiak.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>> TL:DR version, netalyzr probes a buffer depth that while existing has not much relevance on the latency behavior under load for cerowrt.
> Yes, it doesn't have much relevance for latency where fq_codel or
> similar are employed.
Exactly.
> But where it's not (or where fq_codel is defeated by DOS style
> traffic), it seems this comes back as a meaningful metric.
That is what I thought as well initially,. But then (I think Eric D explained) if the system is under a DOS attack we have more severe problems at hand than ping latency ;) Think about it that way, if the flood saturates our uplink, fq_codel will sooner or later reign it in anyway, and we only see a temporary glitch in latency performance (during the time the queue stays in tail-drop or so). If the DOS attack is coming from the outside against our system we are hosed anyway, as a the upstream CMTS/DSLAM?BRAS buffers will fill up over which we have no control (as typically the ingress of a DSLAM is much greater than the egress to a specific line so there is going to be an normally temporary queue). I think during a DOS all hops with ingress-from-DOS > egress-to-destination will see buffers filing up...
So my current thinking is it is nice to have some buffering against large swings in available bandwidth to smooth out the traffic a bit.
On the topic of the limit parameter I want to add, that I see the most relevant part of limit to keep cerowrt out of out-of-memory conditions which will cause the unit to reboot. So ideally the total amount of buffering in the system stays low enough so the box does not go belly-up.
> In the end
> codel is workaround for overbuffering, which is not being removed very
> hastily.
I beg to differ, once the buffer management gets smart buffers turn from liability to a boon ;)
Best Regards
Sebastian
>
> Best regards,
> Maciej
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-25 14:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-25 11:14 Oliver Niesner
2014-02-25 12:08 ` Sebastian Moeller
2014-02-25 14:05 ` Maciej Soltysiak
2014-02-25 14:19 ` Sebastian Moeller [this message]
2014-02-25 15:59 ` Jim Gettys
[not found] ` <D82FF87B-F220-45B4-AA87-27037DB472C9@icsi.berkeley.edu>
2014-02-25 16:46 ` Jim Gettys
2014-02-25 21:27 ` dpreed
2014-02-25 17:10 ` Dave Taht
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/cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54AF617E-908B-444A-B424-076795446363@gmx.de \
--to=moeller0@gmx.de \
--cc=cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=maciej@soltysiak.com \
/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