From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACB913B29E for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id i50so8195518qtf.0 for ; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 10:41:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ESxEqC21dBZw4UdAww4TjTfh7Im+ogpCX9K72WfUcm0=; b=GOiXH2Z9+BAuQl16qrpwHY8i+7FKMPufKJFWW1D61WQ1x01jlqK/f23mPAEnUMasiI 9yt2YEUSSnqptvJLPMmmiQ4G+7FYz+TLqyygZMImanuw8VGh+w8kxrH9NliXZH+e4eRA Mt9QRAJ39RQspZ06i0b+nHQoR5VEabGu8xA9mtqzU7iWh0Duxd+X3wBdRWzkpRkgBIpe 9t5jkif3QsfYj1wEhDBUj4LfebUV3sRymP1shCmx9zhi5vdwm0r9pVfbw/8eUsn6N1Yo iByuP6hrejDTj6A0hRJR+u0nKEHYZeT/Iothytb4iM5ZMapTaQE5CNfFq1lIpAhI0EGs IuHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ESxEqC21dBZw4UdAww4TjTfh7Im+ogpCX9K72WfUcm0=; b=IVHnrCU5NxnzNS17HNYIJupYYf1zmsQex+79V4A5o30SGuKPNvTHkdc6JUvz5UasW+ sLtmrqCJXhWqvLAB297ga2TiPUucp4J7q9PafAnV7DXeWJAEBFwk5/6ae9E/XjVqbR4X JZPzV52G9FITvvi543ko9n3IPw2kV5YIr0564QHqEj8xEVH/iXihELwxdJxBHOoq/vRT U/cskKgAOsjkNLKghOdW39cDbTWGOOqNexvKDIUxVR94Ne2NxTOcrjTtGUOcywoAtjEA CmUPGM/EygspJiy2965n7AmWvpdMKa+dLmvxEu4/JR18MfKWMaR2JaWfcvq+l/7jcDGC Qflw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhwkgHetiXwX9P+Rf/+Tz7Xd0+lU11U6Wpt1v9OGvIp+bPS521C IPsBqSrJSVDcrhYQXroRVDWPWzkVFg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBZRJXy9leGuMvzmWyKN64R7en7bT8Wx+dGO7ySYvbSz/hT8IwKw3YMXcwl/AIig0Snuz7Pa/x85YtBORScymw= X-Received: by 10.200.63.42 with SMTP id c39mr2027028qtk.277.1504892483212; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 10:41:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.209.65 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:41:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <534F9182-052C-422D-B837-E00479F024BD@gmail.com> References: <534F9182-052C-422D-B837-E00479F024BD@gmail.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:41:22 -0700 Message-ID: To: Rich Brown Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Resolving Bufferbloat in TCP Communication over IEEE 802.11n WLAN by Reducing MAC Retransmission Limit at Low Data Rate X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:41:23 -0000 It is nice to see these lists are not entirely dead. I've spent the last few weeks catching up on published bufferbloat research on google scholar and there has been more than a few papers worth reading, but only this one on wifi (besides "ending the anomaly") stood out. I liked this paper because we'd discussed weakening mac retransmit functions in the past, and they went ahead and did it, with an admittedly simple bimodal function between 80mbits and below. I was lost in the weeds (whenever this was last discussed) trying to come up with an integrated scheme that leveraged apparent load against retransmits, and pulled in minstrel itself in conjunction with fq_codel to try and have an appropriate retransmit figure - the core minstrel insight was that you could, indeed, retry a lot at high rates, but the bloat insight was that you really didn't want to do that at lower ones. I'm still lost in the weeds.