From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Cc: Prateesh Goyal <g.pratish@gmail.com>,
Hari Balakrishnan <hari@csail.mit.edu>,
ECN-Sane <ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
Mohammad Alizadeh <alizadeh@csail.mit.edu>,
bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] abc congestion control on time varying wireless links
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 22:12:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2CC1F0FF-4447-4860-BFE6-0C4CA3312953@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw7cHxz_adN4ezBEvtWtiduFqghSn335Cp+RAtyEBWt5sw@mail.gmail.com>
> On 11 Dec, 2019, at 9:54 pm, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The DC folk want a multibit more immediate signal, for which L4S is
> kind of targetted, (and SCE also
> applies). I haven't seen any data on how well dctcp or SCE -style can
> work on wildly RTT varying links as yet, although it's been pitched at
> the LTE direction, not at wifi.
It turns out that a Codel marking strategy for SCE, with modified parameters of course, works well for tolerating bursty and aggregating links. The RED-ramp and step-function strategies do not - and they're equally bad if the same test scenario is applied to DCTCP or TCP Prague.
The difference is not small; switching from RED to Codel improves goodput from 1/8th to 80% of nominal link capacity, when a rough model of wifi characteristics is inserted into our usual Internet-path scenario.
We're currently exploring how best to set the extra set of Codel parameters involved.
- Jonathan Morton
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-11 20:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-11 19:17 [Ecn-sane] " Dave Taht
2019-12-11 19:19 ` Prateesh Goyal
2019-12-11 19:54 ` Dave Taht
2019-12-11 20:10 ` Dave Taht
2019-12-11 20:12 ` Jonathan Morton [this message]
2019-12-12 21:31 ` [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] " Dave Taht
2019-12-11 21:18 ` [Ecn-sane] " David P. Reed
2019-12-11 21:30 ` David P. Reed
2019-12-18 19:43 ` [Ecn-sane] [Bloat] " Dave Taht
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/ecn-sane.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2CC1F0FF-4447-4860-BFE6-0C4CA3312953@gmail.com \
--to=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=alizadeh@csail.mit.edu \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
--cc=ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=g.pratish@gmail.com \
--cc=hari@csail.mit.edu \
/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