From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E210D201AF7 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from c-24-4-217-203.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([24.4.217.203] helo=kmn.local) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SNnoA-000DZe-He; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:14:10 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 24.4.217.203 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/yqwlm1nrUwz0Ukm5P1cfon7YHcjz2Loc= Message-ID: <4F9AC5CA.1080405@pollere.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:14:02 -0700 From: Kathleen Nichols User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: codel@bufferbloat.net X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Codel] update, question X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:14:12 -0000 ACM Queue folks are very quick and have sent us an edited version of the paper. We are now the bottleneck as Van has another paper with a deadline (and I'm one of the guest editors waiting for it, so it gets priority!) but we hope to get it back to them before Monday. So I assume it will go up on Queue soon. I am going to put out some of the other results asap. So I came home and told Van about our Tuesday meeting and some of the questions and comments. He suggested I try to run a "datacenter" type scenario. Well, okay, easier said than done. ns-2 becomes very unhappy with a 10G link though 1G seems okay with shorter simulation time than I've been running. I let the buffers be set to a "nominal" BDP which means they are huge for a 5ms RTT. Initially, they fill up and, because the control interval is longish compared to 5ms and the pipe size is big, it take a while (order 3 sec) for CoDel to start controlling after which it does so just fine. This is preliminary and not real scientific, but I was wondering if anyone could suggest any particuar wrinkles to this that make things more realistic. I'm thinking of using a smaller buffer size size it just leads to 3 uninteresting seconds of sim time. Getting a better wireless model might be interesting... Kathie