From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
	Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AAA9200B29
	for <codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun,  6 May 2012 11:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so2572119wgb.4
	for <codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Sun, 06 May 2012 11:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date
	:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=lFDbD7GQBSnBMwwt7ZpBG1CalOq5GKYSzP9MZh6ZOMU=;
	b=qQhMWiXpQSoJyZP4m06rAjd4d0Ltdmz73w1hXLqDl3+FTuwFO1iwdKVaRDB6LrFcfH
	bNti+4nFGdb0WpmaM0b+ymtLk9GQICqv1evNstSyJgshw7lsEL+XxaFxSqZeOup5rAwo
	cSyYnzCO++4xAypMAV+GT0UGt4QV37mJkDp8LXkgtaJW9HHSRZjxFMkD+xOEJHUohjgU
	OMRRZF2qemCIWvf26IdJUoqEZmLyPPNpius1ZbuFw6yR7jrt5+L1JPAAWST6crwx/DK/
	1uK4QPSp5sGe3pswI82d5X5B24AhayYWJN71ZPQFEUXwQiOClIDldBRaewYH4KcEKG6N
	+1lQ==
Received: by 10.180.104.65 with SMTP id gc1mr28878394wib.13.1336328143743;
	Sun, 06 May 2012 11:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.30.42.18] (122.237.66.86.rev.sfr.net. [86.66.237.122])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u9sm15890963wix.0.2012.05.06.11.15.41
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 May 2012 11:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FA6B2FB.2030809@freedesktop.org>
References: <CAA93jw7bnQED7QXc_jgsEyf-ydR0Bo-OazBZOTXDQ9nYYCgpJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1336281092.3752.982.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<1336283203.3752.1032.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<1336315913.3752.1598.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<1336324134.3752.1825.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<4FA6B2FB.2030809@freedesktop.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 20:15:40 +0200
Message-ID: <1336328140.3752.2014.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Codel] usage of 'count' in codel
X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions <codel.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/codel>,
	<mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/private/codel>
List-Post: <mailto:codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel>,
	<mailto:codel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 18:15:46 -0000

On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 13:20 -0400, Jim Gettys wrote:



> I sort of think that having some upper queue time bound makes sense, if
> only to ensure that TCP's quadratic (un)responsiveness never gets out of
> hand.  But we agreed that having an implementation we could play with to
> observe reality would likely be better than hand-waving with no
> experience about how long the queue should be allowed to grow.

Even with normal tcp flows, codel is not responsive enough and too
conservative as is.

drop_next = control_law(drop_next)   with interval/sqrt(count)
increments ?

Something is _really_ wrong.

Thats few drops per second when we need far more than this.

interval = 100ms so you need count = 10000 to reach the rate of one drop
per ms, regardless of the link capacity.

control loop has no input on time of residence of packets.