From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A3C21F1CE for ; Tue, 7 May 2013 13:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UZoD5-0003li-PC for codel@lists.bufferbloat.net; Tue, 07 May 2013 22:10:03 +0200 Received: from cpe-72-182-104-214.austin.res.rr.com ([72.182.104.214]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 07 May 2013 22:10:03 +0200 Received: from wmf by cpe-72-182-104-214.austin.res.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 07 May 2013 22:10:03 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net From: Wes Felter Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 14:56:02 -0500 Message-ID: References: <19404.1367933465@sandelman.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpe-72-182-104-214.austin.res.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 In-Reply-To: Cc: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 20:10:08 -0000 On 5/7/13 11:30 AM, Greg White wrote: > This presumes that UDP is the only traffic that is latency sensitive (we > also consider web traffic to be latency sensitive), and that TCP carries > the bulk data that causes problems for latency sensitive traffic (AFAIK > BitTorrent uTP is layered on top of UDP). > > I'm not sure that a TCP/UDP distinction ends up helping in the end. I agree. We already have ToS/DiffServ so I would be hesitant to try to encode some other heuristic into a scheduler. (If your traffic isn't properly marked you can use some heuristic iptables rules to remark it, keeping classification orthogonal from scheduling.) Is it time for prio_fq_codel or wfq_codel? That's what comes to mind when seeing the BitTorrent vs. VoIP results. -- Wes Felter IBM Research - Austin