From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcaid.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.83]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103E721F181 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFAF76806C; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.38.244.93] (mobile-166-137-212-052.mycingular.net [166.137.212.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nichols@pollere.net) by homiemail-a70.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5202A768061; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:10:26 -0700 (PDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-127E09B1-F0AA-49B4-9E55-50BECD17A502 Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329) From: Kathleen Nichols Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:10:15 -0700 To: Jim Gettys Cc: Keith Winstein , "codel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Codel] sprout 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: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:10:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail-127E09B1-F0AA-49B4-9E55-50BECD17A502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is that indeed what I think? On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Keith Winstein wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Jim Gettys wrote: >>> Did you compare with fq_codel? None of us (Van included) advocate CoDel= by itself. >>=20 >> Hi Jim, >>=20 >> In our evaluation there's only one flow over the queue (in each direction= ) -- the videoconference. So, yes. >>=20 >> In the upcoming paper where we try and come up with the best end-to-end s= chemes for multiuser traffic, we compare against Cubic-over-sfqCoDel (http:/= /www.pollere.net/Txtdocs/sfqcodel.cc). >=20 > Great. >=20 > I sure wish we could get together on *fq_codel variants. Kathy thinks tha= t there is no difference between sfq_codel and fq_codel, and Dave thinks the= re is a difference. >=20 > Sigh.... > - Jim > =20 >>=20 >> Cheers, >> Keith >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Codel mailing list > Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel --Apple-Mail-127E09B1-F0AA-49B4-9E55-50BECD17A502 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Is that indeed what I think?

On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> wrote:




On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Keith Winstein <keithw@mit.edu> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> wrote:
Did you compare with fq_codel?  None of us (Van included) advocate CoDel by itself.

Hi Jim,

In our evaluation there's only one flow over the queue (in each direction) -- the videoconference. So, yes.

In the upcoming paper where we try and come up with the best end-to-end schemes for multiuser traffic, we compare against Cubic-over-sfqCoDel (http://www.pollere.net/Txtdocs/sfqcodel.cc).

Great.

I sure wish we could get together on *fq_codel variants.  Kathy thinks that there is no difference between sfq_codel and fq_codel, and Dave thinks there is a difference.

Sigh....
                              - Jim
 

Cheers,
Keith

_______________________________________________
Codel mailing list
Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel
--Apple-Mail-127E09B1-F0AA-49B4-9E55-50BECD17A502--