From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david@lang.hm>
Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEF6C3B29E
 for <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Wed,  9 Jun 2021 14:10:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dlang-laptop.local (unknown [10.2.0.162])
 by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9BFFC463;
 Wed,  9 Jun 2021 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang-laptop
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
In-Reply-To: <29781.1623256782@localhost>
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2106091109500.16154@qynat-yncgbc>
References: <A572CF80-E295-4581-8A71-40731A09F79C@onholyground.com>
 <CALjsLJsNMo+ONF-BaVdgde5WpJdKuOSVaapFD11SDPhf5UkgwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <AB233C27-07F0-4D2C-A433-4E6C0D64299A@teklibre.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.2106091137570.13354@uplift.swm.pp.se>
 <29781.1623256782@localhost>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: [Starlink] dynamically adjusting cake to starlink
X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." <starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/starlink>,
 <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink>
List-Post: <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>,
 <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:10:56 -0000

an earlier post said dishy evaluates it's throughput 15 times per second, one 
packet can provide the info, so O(10)per second is not unreasonable

David Lang