in-line On 8/26/16 4:20 PM, David Lang wrote: > On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Kathleen Nichols wrote: > >> I think it might be useful to say these tests measure the maximum >> *potential* for >> bufferbloat. That is, they plumb the depths of the buffers in the path. >> I tried running >> dslreports while I was running a video and though dslreports ramps >> delays up to 700ms, >> before and after that peak delay is more like 45ms. I don't think large >> buffers are going >> to go away, what matters is whether they are getting filled up. >> >> So, is "bufferbloat" the existence of large buffers or the existence of >> large queues? I think >> the latter. > > large buffers that never fill up may as well be small buffers. > > it's the fact that the large buffers fill that's the problem.
Yes, that's the point. > > so you can call it large queues instead of large buffers, but the result > is that packets end up being 'in transit' for a long time. No, a large queue is a bunch of packets waiting in a queue (which is contained in a buffer). A large buffer with zero or a small number of packets in it is not going to result in packets being in transit for a long time. > > David Lang _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
