[Bloat] TCP BBR paper is now generally available

[Neal Cardwell]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Steinar H. Gunderson <
sgunderson at bigfoot.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 03:24:28PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Wait a minute. If you use fq on the receiver, then maybe your old debian
> > kernel did not backport :
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/
> commit/?id=9878196578286c5ed494778ada01da094377a686
>
> I upgraded to 4.7.0 (newest backport available). I can get up to ~45
> MB/sec,
> but it seems to hover more around ~22 MB/sec in this test:
>
>   http://storage.sesse.net/bbr-4.7.0.pcap


Thanks for the report, Steinar. Can you please clarify whether the BBR
behavior you are seeing is a regression vs CUBIC's behavior, or is just
mysterious?

It's hard to tell from a receiver-side trace, but this looks to me like a
send buffer limitation. The RTT looks like about 50ms, and the bandwidth is
a little over 500 Mbps, so the BDP is a little over 3 Mbytes. Looks like
most RTTs have a flight of about 2 MBytes of data, followed by a silence
suggesting perhaps the sender ran out of buffered data to send. (Screen
shot attached.)

What are your net.core.wmem_max and net.ipv4.tcp_wmem settings on the
server sending the data?

What happens if you try a bigger wmem cap, like 16 MBytes:

  sysctl -w net.core.wmem_max=16777216 net.ipv4.tcp_wmem='4096 16384
16777216'

If you happen to have access, it would be great to get a sender-side
tcpdump trace for both BBR and CUBIC.

Thanks for all your test reports!

cheers,
neal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20161206/abab9d8d/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bbr-2016-12-06-port-57272.png
Type: image/png
Size: 43369 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20161206/abab9d8d/attachment-0002.png>