CoDel AQM discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <codel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: [Codel] interval target relation ship question
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:41:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1FA8E3B-C2AC-405B-A919-363A122769B5@gmx.de> (raw)

Dear Experts,

Codel and especially fq_codel have massively improved snappiness/interactivity of typical residential internet connections, as shown in the cerowrt testbed and also in the french ISP free's roll-out of coddled xddl modems. One observation has been that at low bandwidth the latency/bandwidth trade-off does not seem to be ideal and an empirical solution to this problem has been to increase the target as a function of the available bandwidth. I realize that codel tries to accommodate for low-bandwidth links by always allowing at least one packet in the queue. But empirically that does not seem to be enough for good behavior on slow links (I think the issue is that the bandwidth sacrifice seems a bit to large)…
	Currently we try to model what we know about free's approach in cerowrt, basically we increase target as a function of bandwidth and also increase interval be the same amount as target. Now having read section "3.2 Setpoint" of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel/?include_text=1 makes a strong point that target should be in the range of 5-10% of interval. So would it make more sense to increase interval so that after adjustments new_target = 0.05*new_interval still stays true? Or would you recommend to do something along the lines of:
	new_interval = 100ms + known DSL link latency (can be in the range of dozens of ms)
	new_target = new_interval * 0.05 or new_interval * 0.1

I guess I will try to actually test the different approaches in the near future, but would be delighted to get help establishing a decent hypothesis before hand which modification actually will work best.


Bet Regards
	Sebastian

             reply	other threads:[~2014-03-13  8:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-13  8:41 Sebastian Moeller [this message]
2014-03-13  9:04 ` Andrew McGregor
2014-03-13  9:28   ` Sebastian Moeller
2014-03-13 16:02     ` Kathleen Nichols

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/codel.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=E1FA8E3B-C2AC-405B-A919-363A122769B5@gmx.de \
    --to=moeller0@gmx.de \
    --cc=codel@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox