[Cake] cake target corner cases?

[Alan Jenkins]

On 01/11/2015, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
> Dear cake committee,
>
> I just played around with the most recent sch_cake and noticed:
>
> user at computer:~/CODE/tc-adv/tc> sudo tc-adv qdisc del dev eth0 root
> user at computer:~/CODE/tc-adv/tc> sudo tc-adv qdisc replace dev eth0 root cake
> bandwidth 1Mbit ; sudo tc-adv -s qdisc
> qdisc cake 8005: dev eth0 root refcnt 6 bandwidth 1Mbit diffserv4 flows rtt
> 100.0ms raw
>  Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>  backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> capacity estimate: 1Mbit
>              Tin 0       Tin 1       Tin 2       Tin 3
>   thresh       1Mbit   937504bit     750Kbit     250Kbit
>   target      18.2ms      19.4ms      24.2ms      72.7ms
> interval     145.3ms     155.0ms     193.8ms     581.4ms


> Here target is always 12.5% of interval instead of the expected 6.25%
> 1/16 = 0.0625
> 72.7/581.4 = 0.125042999656
> 24.2/193.8 = 0.124871001032
> 19.4/155.0 = 0.125161290323
> 18.2/145.3 = 0.125258086717
> But the bandwidth is really low, so pushing target closer to the bandwidth
> conserving side of the codel rationale might be fine,

Pretty sure it's a minimum derived from the MTU

((mtu=1.5kbyte) * 8 bits/byte) / 1000 Mbit/s = 0.012s

except I don't know where the .5 comes from, that's incredibly
suspicious to have a round 1/8th :).

The point is that if buffering falls below the MTU, the connection
will be completely clobbered.

In a way it's nice cake reports this in the target.  Otherwise cake
would claim the target is 5ms, but measurements would show the
effective target is more than twice as high.

> since latency is bad
> to begin with and bandwidth also pretty scarce. But it might be interesting
> to do a few more measurements at low bandwidths to confirm that the 12.5% of
> interval logic holds water; one could also argue that people with such links
> (a lot of DSL lines have even less upload, so this certainly is not extreme)
> might think that any added ms of delay matters (more than bandwidth);
> currently we leave the user no remedy...
>
>

<snip>

> This looks okay, except Tin3 has target at 7.3/101.0 = 0.0722772277228 7% of
> interval.

Looks like the same thing.


> Both observations might actually be on purpose, but if so we should document
> that behavior as expected, for example in the man page…
>
> Best Regards
> 	Sebastian


I'm afraid I can't help mention my old niggle :).  _If_ you mention
this alongside instructions for RRUL, I think you'd also want to
explain^W mention the measurement increase for diffserv4 v.s.
besteffort.

I think the ICMP ping measurement increases by another 10ms on my
connection (11500k down /  850k up, so an mtu is ~15ms).  I concluded
it was inherent in prioritization.  Now I guess it's equal to the sum
of target * bandwidth_fraction for each class "above" icmp ping (and
could be tested).

I have graphs from sqm with and without classification.  I did test
cake once and I think it's the same (otherwise would be a bug).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49925445/bufferbloat.net/220-cdf-531414.sqm_simplest_11500_850_atm40_udppingfix.svg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49925445/bufferbloat.net/221-cdf-360505.sqm_simple_11500_850_atm40_udppingfix.svg

Warm regards
Alan