[Bloat] Remy: Computer-Generated Congestion Control

Thu Aug 21 15:46:54 EDT 2014

On 21. aug. 2014, at 19:04, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>> Dave,
>> 
>> About this point that I've seen you make repeatedly:
>> 
>>> My biggest problem with all the work so far is that it starts with a
>>> constant baseline 150ms or 100ms RTT, and then try various algorithms
>>> over a wide range of bandwidths, and then elides that base RTT in all
>>> future plots. Unless you read carefully, you don't see that...
>>> 
>>> The original bufferbloat experiment was at a physical RTT of 10ms,
>>> with bidirectional traffic flooding the queues in both directions, on
>>> an asymmetric network. I keep waiting for more experimenters to try
>>> that as a baseline experiment.
>> 
>> 
>> This sounds like a call for reality, when the point is to measure things that matter to the system you're investigating.
> 
> Heh. It is my wish, certainly, to see the remy concept extended to
> solving the problems I consider important. The prospect of merely
> warming my feet on a nice 80 core box for a week, and evaluating the
> results, is quite appealing.
> 
> I'll gladly trade someone else's code, and someone else's compute
> time, for a vacation (or unemployment, if it works out!). Can arrange
> for a very hefty cluster to tackle this stuff also, if the code were
> public.
> 
> I have encouraged keith to look into the netfpga.org project as a
> possible target for the rules being created by remy's algorithms.
> 
>> E.g., if I'm investigating TCP, and I don't specifically work on ACK behavior (ACK congestion control or something like that), I usually don't care much about the backwards traffic or the asymmetry. Yes it does influence the measured RTT a bit, but then you argue for using a smaller base RTT where the impact of this gets smaller too.
>> 
>> What matters to the function of congestion controllers is the BDP, and the buffer size.
> 
> Which varies based on the real physical RTT to the server. One of the
> biggest problems in
> nets today is that larger flow sources (CDNS, HAS(netflix)) keep
> moving closer and closer to the
> end node, with all the problems with tcp fairness that short RTTs
> induce on longer ones, like your radio
> flow blow.

Sure

>> As for real RTTs, I like pinging wwoz.org because it's a radio station in New Orleans. I do sometimes listen to it, then I get traffic via a TCP connection that has this RTT. Very real. My ping delay is consistently above 110ms.
> 
> I too use a low rate radio stream to measure the impact of other flows
> on my listening experience.
> 
> I'd written this before the bufferbloat project got rolling, before
> I'd even met jim.
> 
> http://nex-6.taht.net/posts/Did_Bufferbloat_Kill_My_Net_Radio/
> 
> ... haven't had a problem for 2 years now. :)
> 
> Still do use the stream ripping thing for taking stuff on the road.
> 
>> 
>> On a side note, I can't help but mention that the "original bufferbloat experiment" features ping over FQ... measuring ping all by itself, pretty much :-)
> 
> Huh? The original bufferbloat experiments were against a comcast cable
> modem, and various other devices, lacking FQ entirely. there was a
> youtube video, a paper, (things like "daddy, why is the internet slow
> today" and various other resources. So the earliest stuff was "upload
> + ping + complaints about the network from the kids", and the later
> simultaneous up+down+ping abstraction was to get the kids out of the
> equation.

Oops, sorry. I referred to something I'd seen presented so often that I thought this must be the "original experiment". Of course it isn't, FQ_CoDel wasn't there from day 1  :)  apologies

> I agree that up+down+ping is not as useful as we'd like now that FQ is
> on the table.
> 
> I have been attempting to formalize where we are now, adding rigor
> based on those early benchmarks,  with both netperf-wrapper's
> tcp_bidirectional test, the more advanced rrul and rtt_fairness tests,
> and a model in ns3. Given how much bloat we've killed elsewhere I
> would like to continue to improve these tests to properly show
> interactions with truly isochronous streams (there are several tests
> in netperf-wrapper now that leverage d-itg for that now (thx toke!),
> and more bursty yet rate limited flows like videoconferencing which
> we've been discussing the structure of with various members of the
> rmcat group.
> 
> My complaint comes from seeing very low bandwidths and long rtts and
> short queue lengths used in materials used to explain bufferbloat,
> like this:

Short queue lengths is of course odd. Low bandwidth is sometimes convenient to isolate an effect, as it makes it less likely for the CPU, rwnd, lack of window scaling, or whatever else to be your bottleneck.

> https://www.udacity.com/wiki/cn/assignment5-buffer-bloat
> 
> when the reality:
> 
> 1) There is a double bump you see in tcp for example at truly
> excessive queue lengths). You also see truly
> terrible ramp up performance when competing data and ack flows.
> 
> 2) the example assumes byte to packet length equivalence (100 packets
> = 150kb) which is completely untrue -
> 100 packets is in the range of 6.4kb-150kb - and a reason why we have
> much larger packet based queue lengths in the real world IS because of
> optimizing for acks, not data in commonly deployed equipment.
> 
> If you want to test a byte based queue length, by all means (I have
> gradually come to the opinion that byte based packet queues are best),
> but test either packet or byte based queues under conditions that are
> ack dominated or data dominated, with both, preferably all scenarios.
> 
> 3) it is at 1.5mbit, not the 5,10,100mbit speeds. Below 10mbits you
> see IW10 or IW4 effects, you see ssthresh not hit, and a variety of
> other tcp specific issues, rather than the generic bufferbloat
> problem.
> 
> 4) the 20ms in that course is actually reasonable.  :)
> 
> I don't understand what the harm would have been to the student to use
> 1000 packets, and test up, down, and up + down, at 10 or 100Mbit.
> 
> 5) I'd have liked it if the final experiment in the above course
> material switched to huge queue lengths (say for example, cisco's 2800
> default for their 4500 line), or explained the real world situation
> better, so the takeaway was closer to the real size and scope of the
> problem.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> Nearly every paper I've read make one or more of the above
> modifications to what I'd viewed as the original experiment, and I'd
> like to add rigor to the definitions of phrases floating around like
> "bufferbloat episode", and so on.
> 
> 
>> Michael
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Täht
> 
> NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20140821/3e5d1b75/attachment-0003.html>