From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D16AF3CB37;
 Sat, 23 Mar 2019 15:12:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501)
 id A73FAB0; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:12:18 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail;
 t=1553368338; bh=GlE5Q4My/f4LPK3gyGRhTNVAe1lgtax9gcxU7UmdtV4=;
 h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=xCxZ0p0aba6Xxqjh1WbgdlBFzmaa6BOUYz4Se+AYtI2N4zQZ76h+40ZMhjxRRZQdL
 wOzL4v1hAlylZRwYjVYdO8c47zLbIE1wdNw0XbGxWPiV+CTtIZHG0PKj4ifayAAoYM
 0CiGv9vDT2l6EvjoGleu/VdLvQC5gOjrtAUIpOW4=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55C8AF;
 Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:12:18 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:12:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
cc: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>, 
 "ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net" <ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net>, 
 bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
In-Reply-To: <06B1A5EA-BBA1-4F0A-B072-E7CFACCA4E91@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903232009260.3161@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903211121530.3161@uplift.swm.pp.se>
 <46D9B2E8-0F19-48FF-81B8-D9F4F313C8E9@akamai.com>
 <06B1A5EA-BBA1-4F0A-B072-E7CFACCA4E91@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] can we setup a "how to get this into existing
 networks" get-together in Prague coming week?
X-BeenThere: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of explicit congestion notification's impact on the
 Internet <ecn-sane.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/ecn-sane>,
 <mailto:ecn-sane-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/ecn-sane>
List-Post: <mailto:ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:ecn-sane-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/ecn-sane>,
 <mailto:ecn-sane-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:12:20 -0000

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Jonathan Morton wrote:

> Heated agreement from over here, despite my preference for flow 
> isolation.  Plain old AQM can be orders of magnitude better than a dumb 
> FIFO.

In my testing, FIFO with RED was already huge improvement over just plain 
FIFO.

Configuring 1GE shaping with FIFO yielded 100ms buffering just by naive 
configuration, adding one line of random-detect config brought this down 
to 10-15ms without any loss of actual throughput.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se