From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34A9D3B2A0; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 07:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 363DFA4; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:32:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1474457565; bh=dkbIyoJHV6wBCIVQxPzEhPfySPNKwWzoCJxT2iZBpNo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=K0X4MlFMb6f+vrHRGFaIKIHifrRltjepKEwth1P0jZ1TRQVYu4F2p04+9E3ubkT05 HN1WqRZWan2ByR6wZrfqpnp7/jFKZAMwy8tnm5PjQ1TiFkaQRonSXRdU9NXgUBmMd+ BeAVoTm8m4CyWua1eM7ZtTSF19XGlbHabx+dadjo= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC88A3; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:32:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:32:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht cc: bloat , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <92a6ae25-530f-1837-addd-8a9ef07dd022@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] BBR congestion control algorithm for TCP in net-next 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: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:32:46 -0000 On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Dave Taht wrote: > I did a fairly comprehensive string of tests today, comparing it at > 20Mbits, 48ms RTT, to cubic and competing with cubic, against a byte > fifo of 256k, pie, cake, cake flowblind, and fq_codel. 20 megabit/s is 2.5 megabyte/s, so that 256k FIFO is only 100ms worth of buffering. I guess you see packet drop in steady state here, ie buffer is full? I'd be interested in seeing same experiment start with 10MB FIFO, and having CUBIC flow start first and give it proper head start. My intuition and understanding of what's going to happen might very well be completely off, but I think it'd be interesting to know. I'll take a look at your flent data, thanks for posting them! -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se