From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (lang.hm [66.167.227.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99D573B2A2 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 11:17:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u4BFHOhJ024324; Wed, 11 May 2016 08:17:24 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 08:17:24 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= cc: Luca Muscariello , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <874ma4ljfz.fsf@toke.dk> Message-ID: References: <871t58n5wk.fsf@toke.dk> <87futolndh.fsf@toke.dk> <874ma4ljfz.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="680960-1323166343-1462979844=:1548" Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Thoughts on tackling airtime fairness 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: Wed, 11 May 2016 15:17:27 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --680960-1323166343-1462979844=:1548 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Wed, 11 May 2016, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Luca Muscariello writes: > >> Do you happen to recall what precision you achieved or how much the >> precision was really important? Several papers seem to assume that very >> high precision is not terribly important since it all evens out in the >> end, and I can see how that could be true; but would like to have it >> confirmed :) >> >> what do you mean with precision? >> Do you mean in measuring the PHY rate? >> Short term vs long term measurements? else? > > Yes, in measuring the rate. Was this a per-packet thing, and were you > actually able to get information sufficiently accurate to achieve the > desired level of fairness? And by what mechanism? Was this in the driver > or higher up in the stack? I expect that if you were able to change this even once/sec and account for the rate you would be far better than what we have now. David Lang --680960-1323166343-1462979844=:1548--