From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from g1t5425.austin.hp.com (g1t5425.austin.hp.com [15.216.225.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.hp.com", Issuer "VeriSign Class 3 Secure Server CA - G3" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C6E721F2E8 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 10:10:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from g2t2360.austin.hp.com (g2t2360.austin.hp.com [16.197.8.247]) by g1t5425.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6F384; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:10:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [16.103.148.51] (tardy.usa.hp.com [16.103.148.51]) by g2t2360.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC03646; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:10:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54F4A7A2.2030009@hp.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 10:10:42 -0800 From: Rick Jones User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, divyasingla1989@gmail.com References: <5EDCCC18D27F4F039FA971B3C834A466@srichardlxp2> <20150226151457.75fc898b@urahara> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Codel] About Packet Drop in Codel 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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 18:11:13 -0000 On 03/02/2015 09:43 AM, divya singla wrote: > please explain me this also: > > how codel controls the delay like it drops the packet when it spends > more time than target and after that it will be retransmitted. > So in case of retransmission and all, i think delay should be more. > isn't it? At the risk of typing beyond my understanding... CoDel is expected to be deployed in situations where the maximum possible queuing is rather large at a bottleneck link. Probably several multiples of the RTT in time/size. It is a response to a belief that throwing more and more memory at queues and holding that every packet is sacred is a good thing. Consider what would/could happen with such queues without CoDel and what that would mean to delay. > Next , How does UDP react like tcp adjusts its rate when there is > packet loss and UDP? UDP doesn't. The *application* using UDP is expected too, just as applications using UDP have been expected to do "the right things" from the beginning. rick jones > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Stephen Hemminger > > wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:32:58 +0100 > "Richard Scheffenegger" > wrote: > > > Hi Members, > > i am doing M.tech and my research topic is AQM. > > i tried to run codel with ns-2.35. > > And i found packet loss is more in codel as compared to RED. > > More packet loss is no necessarily a bad thing. > You need to measure throughput and latency together. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Codel mailing list > Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel >