From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com (mail-bk0-f43.google.com
	[209.85.214.43]) (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 135B621F0C4;
	Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty5 with SMTP id y5so1896160bkt.16
	for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:17 -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=3lbYaNA8aCMAPtF/VzS8rIg1jfpAQa5dAPFzLh7emHI=;
	b=eqRuZbZnNdfSaawgcVx5QTIUEC5onpiYYDcoC7xfaihsJFReRZzbMsfUbaShg+JrYA
	thT1VQ41hwlLTTcOs3Ajk6dTp/v7yj7wCaVXAqhJ+PQKro1KoQHb43xLlEN5HAaYI6P6
	ZCYGzuqNToCquJ9WokCXeCstmdz4ifJNV2yecoJlA2vvMmu4io9ENWzL7Cqp4CAXgJbX
	aD6/f+cJ6mr0uY1PNEXTjWg89+430BsemSeNgivY3oG+odMA6xhPrtdVqhSSp4jF9mHX
	fj2ve09Vb/OwlCs3E+rUwz3gOQdL3dXaoDEzBh9n8HvKaI7z3o5KuQXCl3UNvekOdTpe
	j6vQ==
Received: by 10.205.129.4 with SMTP id hg4mr1595625bkc.16.1337190797080;
	Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.28.91.41] ([74.125.122.49])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e20sm6735185bkv.10.2012.05.16.10.53.15
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FB3E677.7090304@hp.com>
References: <CAA93jw7EUSf-NAg9q6oxRms5LQopO-VseYUtXAyCkUi=Yitx-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FA9FDC0.9010600@superduper.net>
	<CALw1_Q3iJ6o5du7GsO-VFObAyfett+Wuhq-pE_4Xaj1F+Vdw8A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B4D136A1-AF2D-4E98-91CC-D7098D040E91@gmail.com>
	<1337148560.8512.1123.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	<4FB3519D.3020809@gmail.com>
	<CAA93jw5Yb+wSb0vCBrH6x+ED87z4qWi6t1OdZ6ws4KQhbOn25Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1337154417.8512.1147.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <4FB3E677.7090304@hp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:53:13 +0200
Message-ID: <1337190793.8512.1221.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Codel] [Bloat]   Exploring the potential of codel, fq_codel,
 and qfq
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, 16 May 2012 17:53:19 -0000

On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 10:40 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:

> 
> I like netperf as much as anyone :)  but keep in mind that the TCP_RR 
> test has only one segment outstanding at a time only when the 
> request/response size is < MSS and/or one has not enabled burst mode to 
> have multiple transactions in flight at one time.
> 
> Are we really likely to see a situation where all the flows are one 
> packet at a time?   If all the flows are either that way naturally, or 
> have gotten there thanks to a one segment cwnd are we not already in a 
> very pathological situation?
> 
> For the impossible to define "fair" question, is it fair to drop a 
> flow's only packet if there are other, multiple-packet flows around?

Please take a look at the patch I sent some hours ago.

In fact the real problem was that thin flows were bypassing codel algo
because we considered the flow backlog (one packet) and decided to _not_
drop packet regardless of its sojourn_time.

With the fix, there is no more problem : fq_codel downgrades to a codel
qdisc in case of a DDOS.