[Cake] A few puzzling Cake results
martensson.jonas at gmail.com
Wed Apr 18 14:06:44 EDT 2018
Dave, in the thread referenced earlier that led to this change you said:
"The loss of throughput here compared to non-ingress mode is a blocker for
mainlining and for that matter, wedging this into lede."
I'm curious, what would the latency be in Toke's experiment with
non-ingress mode and with the 4 MTU change reverted? The same as for
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you are wrong. What we care about is keeping packets in flight
> across the network, with a queue length as close to 1 packet as
> If it breaks ingress mode so be it.
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99 at gmail.com>
> >> On 18 Apr, 2018, at 7:11 pm, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke at toke.dk>
> >> What you're saying here is that you basically don't believe there are
> >> any applications where a bulk TCP flow would also want low queueing
> >> latency? :)
> > I'm saying that there's a tradeoff between intra-flow induced latency
> and packet loss, and I've chosen 4 MTUs as the operating point.
> > Bear in mind that with high packet loss, the retransmissions take an
> extra RTT to complete in any case, and there's a higher probability of
> incurring an RTO which will *really* hurt your intra-flow latency.
> > This equation is modified with ECN because a high signalling rate
> doesn't result in packet loss or retransmissions, but I'm not presently
> making any decisions based on ECN support, except the obvious one of
> whether to mark or drop.
> > - Jonathan Morton
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cake mailing list
> > Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
> Dave Täht
> CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> Tel: 1-669-226-2619
> Cake mailing list
> Cake at lists.bufferbloat.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cake