[Bloat] Up-to-date buffer sizes?

[Michael Menth]

Hi all,

I don't question the usefulness of AQMs for buffers - on the contrary. 
But what are up-to-date buffer sizes in networking gears, especially if 
AQMs are not in use? It's hard to find public and information about it. 
Anyone can point to a citable source?

This raises also the question about the deployment of AQMs in networking 
infrastructure. I know it's already adopted by some OSs, but what about 
forwarding nodes? Any papers about it?

Kind regards

Michael

Am 09.03.2022 um 18:24 schrieb Jesper Dangaard Brouer:
> 
> 
> On 09/03/2022 17.31, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen via Bloat wrote:
>> Michael Menth <menth at uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> are there up-to-date references giving evidence about typical buffer
>>> sizes for various link speeds and technologies?
>>
>> Heh. There was a whole workshop on it a couple of years ago; not sure if
>> it concluded anything: http://buffer-workshop.stanford.edu/program/
>>
>> But really, asking about buffer sizing is missing the point; if you have
>> static buffers with no other management (like AQM and FQ) you're most
>> likely already doing it wrong... :)
> 
> Exactly, I agree with Toke. The important parameter is the latency.
> Or the packet sojourn time (rfc8289 + rfc8290) observed waiting in the 
> queue.
> 
> The question you should be asking is:
>   - What is the max queue latency I'm "willing" to experience on this link?
> 
> Hint, you can then depending on the link rate calculate the max buffer 
> size you should configure.
> 
> The short solution is:
>   - just use fq_codel (rfc8290) as the default qdisc.
> 
> --Jesper
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Prof. Dr. habil. Michael Menth
University of Tuebingen
Faculty of Science
Department of Computer Science
Chair of Communication Networks
Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany
phone: (+49)-7071/29-70505
fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220
mailto:menth at uni-tuebingen.de
http://kn.inf.uni-tuebingen.de