Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad.
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Bjørn Ivar Teigen" <bjorn@domos.no>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Cc: "Dave Täht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>, starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Network quality for rocket scientists
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:32:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKf5G6KZZMZ3uh3vdJ+-OJvMqZQm0U87dbJe6WUyAAR3Qc943g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AFF4380-4AA5-47C5-8BF0-440101A3D788@gmx.de>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2728 bytes --]

Hi Sebastian, thank you for the feedback.

"See the problem? Buffers produce jitter!"
>
>
> I would rephrase that as "over-sized and under-managed" buffers increase
> jitter unduly. Interestingly, bound jitter can be converted into static
> latency by using, wait for it, (delay) buffers and a scheduler.
>

You are absolutely right. I was hoping someone would spot that! There is
one problem with that approach though. To actually remove the jitter the
scheduler can no longer be work-conserving (needs delay as you also point
out), and that increases TCP ramp-up times (among other things). Can be a
hard sell. I think the benefits outweigh the costs though, so I would do it
your way.

>
> > Only nit is at the conclusion... the benefits of applying fair queuing
> > to level out apparent jitter is well demonstrated at this point, for
> > most kinds of traffic. Wish you'd mentioned it.
>
>         I rather wish low latency DOCSIS (LLD) aka L4S's primary
> driver/use-case would not have been mentioned before it has been properly
> tested and confirmed delivering on its promises. Because most of what L4S
> offers/mandates for jitter reduction is "hopes and prayers", aka end-points
> are supposed to behave well... in fairness LLD at least has a poor man's FQ
> on board in the guise of "queue protection" (with by default like 32
> "buckets")... some of the cost of FQ with only few of its benefits...
>
Fair enough, time will show!


> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:07 AM Bjørn Ivar Teigen <bjorn@domos.no>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I was inspired by the latest Starship presentation to write a piece on
> network quality in the language of rocket science. The blog can be found
> here:
> https://www.domos.no/news-updates/network-quality-for-rocket-scientists
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Bjørn Ivar Teigen
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bjørn Ivar Teigen
> >> Head of Research
> >> +47 47335952 | bjorn@domos.no | www.domos.no
> >> WiFi Slicing by Domos
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Starlink mailing list
> >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I tried to build a better future, a few times:
> > https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org
> >
> > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list
> > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>

-- 
Bjørn Ivar Teigen
Head of Research
+47 47335952 | bjorn@domos.no <name@domos.no> | www.domos.no
WiFi Slicing by Domos

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6240 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-14 16:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-14 15:07 Bjørn Ivar Teigen
2022-02-14 15:30 ` Dave Taht
2022-02-14 15:47   ` Bjørn Ivar Teigen
2022-02-14 16:06   ` Sebastian Moeller
2022-02-14 16:32     ` Bjørn Ivar Teigen [this message]
2022-02-14 17:15       ` Sebastian Moeller
2022-02-14 17:52         ` Bjørn Ivar Teigen
2022-02-14 18:38           ` Sebastian Moeller
2022-02-14 19:21             ` Bjørn Ivar Teigen
2022-02-24 14:23               ` [Starlink] FQ " Dave Taht
2022-02-24 14:44                 ` Michael Richardson
2022-02-14 18:08 ` [Starlink] Network quality " Dave Collier-Brown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAKf5G6KZZMZ3uh3vdJ+-OJvMqZQm0U87dbJe6WUyAAR3Qc943g@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=bjorn@domos.no \
    --cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
    --cc=moeller0@gmx.de \
    --cc=starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox