I'm not an expert in TSO / GSO, and NIC driver design, but what I gathered is, that with these schemes, and mordern NICs that do scatter/gather DMA of dotzends of "independent" header/data chuncks directly from memory, the NIC will typically send out non-interleaved trains of segments all belonging to single TCP sessions. With the implicit assumption, that these burst of up to 180 segments (Intel supports 256kB data per chain) can be absorped by the buffer at the bottleneck and spread out in time there...
From my perspective, having such GSO / TSO to "cycle" through all thedifferent chains belonging to different sessions (to not introduce reordering at the sender even), should already help pace the segments per session somewhat; a slightly more sophisticated DMA engine could check each of the chains for how much data is to be sent by those, and then clock an appropriate number of interleaved segmets out... I do understand that this is "work" for a HW DMA engine and slows down GSO software implementations, but may severly reduce the instantaneous rate of a single session, and thereby the impact of burst loss to to momenary buffer overload...
(Let me know if I should draw a picture of the way I understand TSO / HW DMA is currently working, and where it could be improved upon):
Best regards, Richard----- Original Message -----
Back to back packets see higher loss rates than packets more spread out in time. Consider a pair of packets, back to back, arriving over a 1Gbit/sec link into a queue being serviced at 34Mbit/sec, the first packet being 'lost' is equivalent to saying that the first packet 'observed' the queue full - the system's state is no longer a random variable - it is known to be full. The second packet (lets assume it is also a full one) 'makes an observation' of the state of that queue about 12us later - but that is only 3% of the time that it takes to service such large packets at 34 Mbit/sec. The system has not had any time to 'relax' anywhere near to back its steady state, it is highly likely that it is still full.Fixing this makes a phenomenal difference on the goodput (with the usual delay effects that implies), we've even built and deployed systems with this sort of engineering embedded (deployed as a network 'wrap') that mean that end users can sustainably (days on end) achieve effective throughput that is better than 98% of (the transmission media imposed) maximum. What we had done is make the network behave closer to the underlying statistical assumptions made in TCP's design.Neil On 5 May 2011, at 17:10, Stephen Hemminger wrote:On Thu, 05 May 2011 12:01:22 -0400 Jim Gettys <j...@freedesktop.org> wrote:On 04/30/2011 03:18 PM, Richard Scheffenegger wrote:I'm curious, has anyone done some simulations to check if the following qualitative statement holds true, and if, what the quantitative effect is: With bufferbloat, the TCP congestion control reaction is unduely delayed. When it finally happens, the tcp stream is likely facing a "burst loss" event - multiple consecutive packets get dropped. Worse yet, the sender with the lowest RTT across the bottleneck will likely start to retransmit while the (tail-drop) queue is still overflowing. And a lost retransmission means a major setback in bandwidth (except for Linux with bulk transfers and SACK enabled), as the standard (RFC documented) behaviour asks for a RTO (1sec nominally, 200-500 ms typically) to recover such a lost retransmission... The second part (more important as an incentive to the ISPs actually), how does the fraction of goodput vs. throughput change, when AQM schemes are deployed, and TCP CC reacts in a timely manner? Small ISPs have to pay for their upstream volume, regardless if that is "real" work (goodput) or unneccessary retransmissions. When I was at a small cable ISP in switzerland last week, surely enough bufferbloat was readily observable (17ms -> 220ms after 30 sec of a bulk transfer), but at first they had the "not our problem" view, until I started discussing burst loss / retransmissions / goodput vs throughput - with the latest point being a real commercial incentive to them. (They promised to check if AQM would be available in the CPE / CMTS, and put latency bounds in their tenders going forward).I wish I had a good answer to your very good questions. Simulation would be interesting though real daa is more convincing. I haven't looked in detail at all that many traces to try to get a feel for how much bandwidth waste there actually is, and more formal studies like Netalyzr, SamKnows, or the Bismark project would be needed to quantify the loss on the network as a whole. I did spend some time last fall with the traces I've taken. In those, I've typically been seeing 1-3% packet loss in the main TCP transfers. On the wireless trace I took, I saw 9% loss, but whether that is bufferbloat induced loss or not, I don't know (the data is out there for those who might want to dig). And as you note, the losses areconcentrated in bursts (probably due to the details of Cubic, so I'm told).I've had anecdotal reports (and some first hand experience) with much higher loss rates, for example from Nick Weaver at ICSI; but I believe in playing things conservatively with any numbers I quote and I've not gotten consistent results when I've tried, so I just report what's in the packet captures I did take. A phenomena that could be occurring is that during congestion avoidance (until TCP loses its cookies entirely and probes for a higher operating point) that TCP is carefully timing it's packets to keep the buffers almost exactly full, so that competing flows (in my case, simple pings) are likely to arrive just when there is no buffer space to accept them and therefore you see higher losses on them than you would on the single flow I've been tracing and getting loss statistics from. People who want to look into this further would be a great help. - JimI would not put a lot of trust in measuring loss with pings. I heard that some ISP's do different processing on ICMP's used for ping packets. They either prioritize them high to provide artificially good response (better marketing numbers); or prioritize them low since they aren't useful traffic. There are also filters that only allow N ICMP requests per second which means repeated probes will be dropped. -- _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.nethttps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
