[Bloat] BBR performance on LTE

[Azin Neishaboori]

Pardon my ignorance. As a late comer, I did not know the rules of the two
mailing lists. In fact I did not even know the bloat mailing list existed.
Only knew of the bloat-devel. I will use the former in the future.

Thanks again
Best
Azin

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:27 PM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jan 22, 2019, at 23:00, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > btw, I didn't even remember we had a bloat-devel mailing list. please
> > use bloat instead
>
> And I thought we use the bloat list to talk about bloat and how to get rid
> of it and use bloat-devel exclusively to talk about developing bloat. I
> took the radio silence as indicator, that we agree that there is sufficient
> "high-quality" bloat around that further development was not required
> yet... ;)
>
>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:59 PM Azin Neishaboori
> > <azin.neishaboori at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Dave
> >>
> >> Thank you for responding. I will email you the *.flent.gz files
> tomorrow and share the other plots here. Thank you for the advice to run
> tcp_nup and down tests. I can do those and report as well tomorrow.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regarding your comment on the 200ms delay, well, the bbr paper
> published by the google team does mention the wifi and cellular LTE links.
> And the LTE links do have as documented higher delays, even higher under
> mobility. Yet the bbr paper claims that bbr works well for them as well.
> But the LTE test results I have got so far do not seem very promising.
> >>
> >> Thank you again for taking time and responding to my email. Tomorrow I
> will send further info as mentioned above.
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Azin
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I am a huge believer in also seeing the baseline *.flent.gz files and
> other plots you can get via the flent-gui... if you could post them
> somewhere or send to me privately? Two examples are obtaining the baseline
> RTT,
> >>> and it would be my hope, over time, that BBR would have found the
> baseline RTT later in the test (the up or down bandwidth plots) than is
> shown by these summary plots. Also as much as I love the rrul tests for
> quickly showing the characteristics of a link under load, BBR makes the
> assumption that flows start up one at a time, and a better string of basic
> tests would be to use tcp_nup or tcp_ndown.
> >>>
> >>> From squinting... It looks like the *baseline* RTT in this test is
> ~200ms.  There really isn't much in this world that works particularly well
> with RTTs this large.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dave Täht
> > CTO, TekLibre, LLC
> > http://www.teklibre.com
> > Tel: 1-831-205-9740
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bloat mailing list
> > Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat-devel mailing list
> Bloat-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat-devel/attachments/20190122/7c35295a/attachment-0001.html>