<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Neal,</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08.07.21 at 15:29 Neal Cardwell
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CADVnQy=SyxdOXCrUnE45x_r3vZi7mM0OyeVo6btJcyZ+qnT_1Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 7:25
AM Bless, Roland (TM) <<a
href="mailto:roland.bless@kit.edu" moz-do-not-send="true">roland.bless@kit.edu</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>It seems that in BBRv2 there are many more mechanisms
present <br>
that try to control the amount of inflight data more
tightly and the new "cap"<br>
is at 1.25 BDP.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>To clarify, the BBRv2 cwnd cap is not 1.25*BDP. If there
is no packet loss or ECN, the BBRv2 cwnd cap is the same as
BBRv1. But if there has been packet loss then conceptually
the cwnd cap is the maximum amount of data delivered in a
single round trip since the last packet loss (with a floor
to ensure that the cwnd does not decrease by more than 30%
per round trip with packet loss, similar to CUBIC's 30%
reduction in a round trip with packet loss). (And upon RTO
the BBR (v1 or v2) cwnd is reset to 1, and slow-starts
upward from there.)</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Thanks for the clarification. I'm patiently waiting to see the BBRv2
mechanisms coherently written up<br>
in that new BBR Internet-Draft version ;-) Getting this together
from the "diffs" on the IETF slides or the source code<br>
is somewhat tedious, so I'll be very grateful for having that single
write up.
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CADVnQy=SyxdOXCrUnE45x_r3vZi7mM0OyeVo6btJcyZ+qnT_1Q@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>There is an overview of the BBRv2 response to packet loss
here:</div>
<div> <a
href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-iccrg-an-update-on-bbr-00#page=18"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-iccrg-an-update-on-bbr-00#page=18</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
My assumption came from slide 25 of this slide set:<br>
the probing is terminated if inflight > 1.25 estimated_bdp (or
"hard ceiling" seen).<br>
So without experiencing more than 2% packet loss this may end up
beyond 1.25 estimated_bdp,<br>
but would it often end at 2estimated_bdp?
<p>Best regards,</p>
<p> Roland</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CADVnQy=SyxdOXCrUnE45x_r3vZi7mM0OyeVo6btJcyZ+qnT_1Q@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>This is too large for short queue routers in the
Internet core, but it helps a lot with cross traffic
on large queue edge routers.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Best regards,<br>
Roland<br>
</p>
<p>[1] <a
href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8117540"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8117540</a></p>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 7, 2021
at 3:19 PM Bless, Roland (TM) <<a
href="mailto:roland.bless@kit.edu" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">roland.bless@kit.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Hi Matt,<br>
<br>
[sorry for the late reply, overlooked this one]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>please, see comments inline.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 02.07.21 at 21:46 Matt Mathis via Bloat
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">The argument is absolutely
correct for Reno, CUBIC and all
other self-clocked protocols. One of the core
assumptions in Jacobson88, was that the
clock for the entire system comes from packets
draining through the bottleneck queue. In
this world, the clock is intrinsically brittle
if the buffers are too small. The drain time
needs to be a substantial fraction of the RTT.</div>
</blockquote>
I'd like to separate the functions here a bit:<br>
<p>1) "automatic pacing" by ACK clocking</p>
<p>2) congestion-window-based operation</p>
<p>I agree that the automatic pacing generated by
the ACK clock (function 1) is increasingly <br>
distorted these days and may consequently cause
micro bursts.<br>
This can be mitigated by using paced sending,
which I consider very useful. <br>
However, I consider abandoning the (congestion)
window-based approaches <br>
with ACK feedback (function 2) as harmful:<br>
a congestion window has an automatic
self-stabilizing property since the ACK feedback
reflects<br>
also the queuing delay and the congestion window
limits the amount of inflight data.<br>
In contrast, rate-based senders risk
instability: two senders in an M/D/1 setting,
each sender sending with 50%<br>
bottleneck rate in average, both using paced
sending at 120% of the average rate, suffice to
cause<br>
instability (queue grows unlimited).<br>
<br>
IMHO, two approaches seem to be useful:<br>
a) congestion-window-based operation with paced
sending<br>
b) rate-based/paced sending with limiting the
amount of inflight data<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, we have reached the point
where we need to discard that requirement.
One of the side points of BBR is that in
many environments it is cheaper to burn
serving CPU to pace into short queue
networks than it is to "right size" the
network queues.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The fundamental problem with the old way
is that in some contexts the buffer memory
has to beat Moore's law, because to maintain
constant drain time the memory size and BW
both have to scale with the link (laser) BW.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>See the slides I gave at the Stanford
Buffer Sizing workshop december 2019: <a
href="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VyBlYQJqWvPuGnQpxW4S46asHMmiA-OeMbewxo_r3Cc/edit#slide=id.g791555f04c_0_5"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Buffer
Sizing: Position Paper</a> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks for the pointer. I don't quite get the
point that the buffer must have a certain size
to keep the ACK clock stable:<br>
in case of an non application-limited sender, a
very small buffer suffices to let the ACK clock
<br>
run steady. The large buffers were mainly
required for loss-based CCs to let the standing
queue <br>
build up that keeps the bottleneck busy during
CWnd reduction after packet loss, thereby <br>
keeping the (bottleneck link) utilization high.<br>
</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p> Roland<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Note that we are talking about DC and
Internet core. At the edge, BW is low
enough where memory is relatively cheap.
In some sense BB came about because memory
is too cheap in these environments.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Thanks,</div>
--MM--<br>
The best way to predict the
future is to create it. -
Alan Kay<br>
<br>
We must not tolerate
intolerance;</div>
<div dir="ltr"> however
our response must be carefully
measured: </div>
<div> too strong
would be hypocritical and
risks spiraling out of
control;</div>
<div> too weak risks
being mistaken for tacit
approval.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jul
2, 2021 at 9:59 AM Stephen Hemminger <<a
href="mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">stephen@networkplumber.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Fri, 2
Jul 2021 09:42:24 -0700<br>
Dave Taht <<a
href="mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">dave.taht@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> "Debunking Bechtolsheim credibly would
get a lot of attention to the<br>
> bufferbloat cause, I suspect." - dpreed<br>
> <br>
> "Why Big Data Needs Big Buffer
Switches" -<br>
> <a
href="http://www.arista.com/assets/data/pdf/Whitepapers/BigDataBigBuffers-WP.pdf"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.arista.com/assets/data/pdf/Whitepapers/BigDataBigBuffers-WP.pdf</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
Also, a lot depends on the TCP congestion
control algorithm being used.<br>
They are using NewReno which only
researchers use in real life.<br>
<br>
Even TCP Cubic has gone through several
revisions. In my experience, the<br>
NS-2 models don't correlate well to real
world behavior.<br>
<br>
In real world tests, TCP Cubic will consume
any buffer it sees at a<br>
congested link. Maybe that is what they mean
by capture effect.<br>
<br>
There is also a weird oscillation effect
with multiple streams, where one<br>
flow will take the buffer, then see a packet
loss and back off, the<br>
other flow will take over the buffer until
it sees loss.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________</blockquote>
</div>
<pre>_______________________________________________
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>