From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <simon@superduper.net>
Received: from masada.superduper.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:ba8:1f1:f263::2])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 887C621F0AE;
	Wed,  1 May 2013 13:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 199-83-222-22.public.monkeybrains.net ([199.83.222.22]
	helo=[192.168.1.119]) by masada.superduper.net with esmtpsa
	(TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <simon@superduper.net>)
	id 1UXdbf-0007tL-Dx; Wed, 01 May 2013 21:26:28 +0100
Message-ID: <51817A6F.1080006@superduper.net>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 13:26:23 -0700
From: Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw5y=n29wAf=rBdR9N0EZ+LX_OuA+XvPc705vcmun2bQzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw5y=n29wAf=rBdR9N0EZ+LX_OuA+XvPc705vcmun2bQzw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
Cc: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net,
	bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Codel] [Bloat] Latest codel, fq_codel,
 and pie sim study from cablelabs now available
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, 01 May 2013 20:26:31 -0000

Interesting to note that sfq-codel's reaction to a non conforming flow 
is of course to start dropping more aggressively to make it conform, 
leading to the high loss rates for whatever is hashed together with a 
VoIP flow that does not reduce it's bandwidth.

One downside to SFQ really.

Simon

On Wed 01 May 2013 04:23:00 AM PDT, Dave Taht wrote:
> Greg White and his team over at cablelabs have just published their
> latest simulation results of the aqm algorithms under test on
> simulated cable modems.
>
> This paper is vastly expanded from the presentation at ietf 86 iccrg,
> including great descriptions the effects of latency on web, voice, and
> gaming traffic, and of codel, fq_codel, and pie. There's an excellent
> and deep section on the characteristics of gaming traffic, a ton of
> new graphs and analysis, and much much more.
>
> http://www.cablelabs.com/downloads/pubs/Active_Queue_Management_Algorithms_DOCSIS_3_0.pdf
>
> While I have a few quibbles, I'll reserve them until after more folk
> have had a chance to read this.
>
> It's good stuff.
>