[Bloat] What is fairness, anyway? was: Re: finally... winning on wired!

[Dan Siemon]

On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 01:40 +0100, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe at bt.com> wrote:
> >
> > In a nutshell, bit-rate equality, where each of N active users gets 1/N of
> > the bit-rate, was found to be extremely _unfair_ when the activity of
> > different users is widely different. For example:
> > * 5 light users all active 1% of the time get close to 100% of a shared link
> > whenever they need it.
> > * However, if instead 2 of these users are active 100% of the time, FQ gives
> > the other three light users only 33% of the link whenever they are active.
> > * That's pretty rubbish for a solution that claims to isolate each user from
> > the excesses of others.
> 
> Without AQM or FQ, we have a situation where one stream from one user
> at a site, can eat more than 100% of the bandwidth.
> 
> 1/u would be a substantial improvement!

Indeed I've found this to be the case. I've been using a Linux tc
configuration in both the upstream and downstream which is designed to
protect each host's bandwidth share and within that provide three
traffic classes with flow fairness (script link below). With this
configuration I no longer have to worry about other network traffic
interfering with a decent web experience or VoIP call.

http://git.coverfire.com/?p=linux-qos-scripts.git;a=blob;f=src-3tos.sh;hb=HEAD

-- 
Key ID: 133F6C3E
Key Fingerprint: 72B3 AF04 EFFE 65E4 46FF  7E5B 9297 18BA 133F 6C3E