From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com
	[209.85.212.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
	Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK))
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7620A2012AC;
	Wed,  9 May 2012 16:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhn19 with SMTP id hn19so914342wib.10
	for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 09 May 2012 16:58:43 -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=FnkDKr6Ucy7KOmGaAklYHqhmukW2uL8npcCc4ohqwdQ=;
	b=Qj3GnjlBVM58b25kfNfS/S04HiYFhLIxt/uLHDzAOcKmU0yH3Euu0emGGgyzZXqF6K
	wFHMNW5RotcWW8XAYbTeFphiabTBuHOLcIX7V+aPFsUxlxqabslA6NVgwuOz/xCZiy8w
	JsV3mLa+OSA+eTNaM94agcTLs+Joy5k1mYOC+PC5rEYJWJGhy8nXU80qH0Hd3WTSxNYA
	XzU/KMjOBS+BuqYazW/St4ihrDXw4X/F/IWYZwev3UEBtsSkLt7WGb5nEe+dIUVsSckp
	bDCKcRcgjMbsbMHpYs2QMG29OLwNG1onrmdbM45huUhGn0ltXbdb40AaO61jfXV6kwXT
	VTfQ==
Received: by 10.180.77.4 with SMTP id o4mr4493431wiw.17.1336607923257;
	Wed, 09 May 2012 16:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.28.91.135] ([74.125.122.49])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fm1sm39496071wib.10.2012.05.09.16.58.40
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 May 2012 16:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FAAE5F0.2030404@freedesktop.org>
References: <CAA93jw7EUSf-NAg9q6oxRms5LQopO-VseYUtXAyCkUi=Yitx-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FA9FDC0.9010600@superduper.net>
	<44673AC5-4320-4C19-9788-87A63C47549D@cisco.com>
	<4FAAE5F0.2030404@freedesktop.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 01:58:39 +0200
Message-ID: <1336607919.12504.119.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>,
	bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Codel] [Bloat] The challenge
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/pipermail/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: Wed, 09 May 2012 23:58:46 -0000

On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:47 -0400, Jim Gettys wrote:

>     2) what the NIC offload engines were doing to generate line rate
> packet trains and injecting them into the net, where they can land
> "spat" at the customer end.


If the server has 100Gb link, and the client a 1Mb link, TSO is hardly
making a difference in trains. Sending 10 consecutive 1500 bytes packets
or one 15000 bytes packets will have the same effect, unless the sender
is serving thousands of clients and a FairQueue interleaves packets.

One solution is at the producer level (TCP stack of the sender in this
case) to properly pace the transmits in MSS units given the RTT and
cwnd, supposedly done with TCP Hybla.