Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [aqm] [Bloat] the side effects of 330ms lag in the real world

From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: "Fred Baker \(fred\)" <fred@cisco.com>,
	"cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
	<cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
	bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
	"aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [aqm] [Bloat] the side effects of 330ms lag in the real world
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:21:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAA93jw4Y9UsRwZ3ZaGAtH0cD6pT8tT21YXTshGPZmv1jn48=Jg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bnvkkr2n.fsf@toke.dk>

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
> Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> writes:
>
>> Now, if someone gives me real fiber to the home, with a real switch fabric
>> upstream, rather than gpon life might be somewhat better (if the switches aren't
>> themselves overbuffered.... But so far, it isn't.
>
> As a data point for this, I have fibre to my apartment building and
> ethernet into the apartment. I get .5 ms to my upstream gateway and
> about 6 ms to Google. Still measured up to ~20 ms of bufferbloat while
> running at 100 Mbps...
>
> http://files.toke.dk/bufferbloat/data/karlstad/cdf_comparison.png

I need to note that what this wonderfully flat CDF for the measurement
stream shows is that short flows under fq_codel leap to the head of
the queue ever better as you get more and more bandwidth available.

The background load flows not shown on this graph are experiencing
5-20ms worth of latency in each direction as per codel's algorithm.

A better test (in progress) would measure typical voip behaviors....

> However, as that graph shows, it is quite possible to completely avoid
> bufferbloat by deploying the right shaping.

It does not "completely avoid bufferbloat", the fq_codel "fast queue"
merely eliminates queuing delay for sparse flows, things like arp, syn,
syn/ack, dns, ntp, etc, as  well as the first packet of any flow that
has not built up a queue yet.

(which is, admittedly, quite a lot of bufferbloat reduction)

The rest of the magic comes from codel.

> And in that case fibre
> *does* have a significant latency advantage. The best latency I've seen
> to the upstream gateway on DSL has been ~12 ms.

And reduced RTT = money.

this piece states observed average RTTs at peak times were 17ms for fiber,
28ms for cable, and 44ms for DSL.

http://www.igvita.com/2012/07/19/latency-the-new-web-performance-bottleneck/

I don't know if the underlying report measures baseline unloaded last mile RTT.

>
> -Toke
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>

-- 
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article