[Cake] [Codel] [aqm] codel with low shape rates

[Agarwal, Anil]

Dave, Jeff,



A quick simulation of Codel with a single queue, with -

               link rate  = 100 kbps,

               packet size = 500 bytes,

               traffic rate = 110 kbps, CBR, unresponsive



shows queue size stabilizes at 1-3 packets.

Count remains at 1.

Queueing delays are 50-86 ms, but that is understandable, given that the packet transmission time is 40 ms.

The algorithm changes state frequently (every ~400 ms), but that is how it works.



Jeff - what scenario are you studying?



Anil



-----Original Message-----
From: Codel [mailto:codel-bounces at lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Dave Täht
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 5:58 PM
To: Jeff Weeks; aqm at ietf.org
Cc: cake at lists.bufferbloat.net; codel at lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Codel] [aqm] codel with low shape rates







On 1/18/16 2:11 PM, Jeff Weeks wrote:

> Hello all,

>

> I'm wondering if there's some data on Codel with low shape rates?

>

> In particular, I'm talking about in the kbps ranges.



We recently did some testing of several codel variants at very low rates (2mbit/384kbit asymmetric). One flent dataset is here:



https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__snapon.cs.kau.se_-7Ed_384k_&d=BQIGaQ&c=jcv3orpCsv7C4ly8-ubDob57ycZ4jvhoYZNDBA06fPk&r=FyvaklKYrHaSCPjbBTdviWIW9uSbnxdNSheSGz1Jvq4&m=MfiDsixBXXTDIMhuHe3aefVdgD3p1luGVD6HQAWZt7A&s=dlQhigd0CU9PuDq2KSsG-73u2A01K4KEagZVPJzuYc8&e=



There are a couple others. I didn't take the time to create graphs and collate results before leaving for christmas vacation, the closest I came to that w/graphs was this post:



https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.bufferbloat.net_pipermail_cake_2016-2DJanuary_001808.html&d=BQIGaQ&c=jcv3orpCsv7C4ly8-ubDob57ycZ4jvhoYZNDBA06fPk&r=FyvaklKYrHaSCPjbBTdviWIW9uSbnxdNSheSGz1Jvq4&m=MfiDsixBXXTDIMhuHe3aefVdgD3p1luGVD6HQAWZt7A&s=sF1-9PiJpAY41luL-EjJxf2SFPSNNEkILZ0AizH9PL0&e=



pie was miserable, also. (it has a 10k estimator needed)



>

> In my investigation, it seems as though the algorithm can't control latency as effectively.

>

> For one, the algorithm requires 2 packets in the queue to operate, but at a low shape rate, it's highly likely that all packets in the queue will have high latency, so 'count' will begin to ramp up... but conversely, it's also likely that we drain the queue, and then leave the drop state (and wont re-enter it for at least an interval's worth of time (100ms)).



This is not quite true - it's bytes, not packets. An MTU's worth of bytes is the std codel limit before switching off.



Additionally, when htb is used, there is at least an htb quantum's worth of packets that queue also. (the "cake" variant does not have this problem. After I published the bcake vs cake results above, the cake code got improved)



> Effectively, we get an oscillation of "in drop state, out of drop state", and we're not in the drop state for long enough to ramp up count, because the queue itself (proportional to the shape rate) isn't very big.



I don't see this, we generally end up with a persistently >1 packet queue with two or more flows going. I see is a worse problem where the basic attributes of keeping a connection up and things like slow start, and with multiple flows, result in count climbing excessively high, especially with ecn in use.



More research at sub 2mbit speeds is needed. Am pretty happy with things in the 4mbit to 40gbit range.



> Are there way to combat this, or am I misinterpreting a portion of the algorithm?



The simplest way to get decent results is to set target slightly more than the MTU at the speed you are running at. e.g. 1Mbit = target 13ms.

This is essentially what the sqm-scripts and cake do - and the results are still less than fully desirable.



(I would like very much to have an aqm that was knobless at these speeds. Most of the work on trying to improve matters at these rates is in the multitude of "cake" variants)



>

> Thanks,

> Jeff

>

>

> ________________________________

> /dev/jeff_weeks.x2936

> Sandvine Incorporated

>

> _______________________________________________

> aqm mailing list

> aqm at ietf.org<mailto:aqm at ietf.org>

> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail

> man_listinfo_aqm&d=BQIGaQ&c=jcv3orpCsv7C4ly8-ubDob57ycZ4jvhoYZNDBA06fP

> k&r=FyvaklKYrHaSCPjbBTdviWIW9uSbnxdNSheSGz1Jvq4&m=MfiDsixBXXTDIMhuHe3a

> efVdgD3p1luGVD6HQAWZt7A&s=pDBHTaIvFZbGIz6xTyl2PwKyBA7KXP-nL5w-nIfT4gc&

> e=

>

_______________________________________________

Codel mailing list

Codel at lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Codel at lists.bufferbloat.net>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.bufferbloat.net_listinfo_codel&d=BQIGaQ&c=jcv3orpCsv7C4ly8-ubDob57ycZ4jvhoYZNDBA06fPk&r=FyvaklKYrHaSCPjbBTdviWIW9uSbnxdNSheSGz1Jvq4&m=MfiDsixBXXTDIMhuHe3aefVdgD3p1luGVD6HQAWZt7A&s=aQhUguCaMy2FpF_zUnTrqGCflO0G-FVhW2L8LT9NyDs&e=
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cake/attachments/20160119/8c7a6ebc/attachment-0001.html>