Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> writes: > However, I would like to point out that thesis defense conversations > are meant to be provocative, by design - when I said that CoDel > doesn’t usually help and long queues would be the right thing for all > applications, I certainly didn’t REALLY REALLY mean that.
Just as I don't REALLY REALLY mean that bigger buffers are always better as you so sneakily tricked me into blurting out ;) > The idea was just to be thought provoking - and indeed I found this > interesting: e.g., if you think about a short HTTP/1 connection, a > large buffer just gives it a greater chance to get all packets across, > and the perceived latency from the reduced round-trips after not > dropping anything may in fact be less than with a smaller (or > CoDel’ed) buffer. Yeah, as a thought experiment I think it kinda works for the use case you said: Just dump the entire piece of content into the network, and let it be queued until the receiver catches up. It almost becomes a CDN-in-the-network kind of thing (just needs multicast to serve multiple receivers at once... ;)). Only trouble is that you need infinite queue space to realise it... > BTW, Anna Brunstrom was also very quick to also give me the HTTP/2.0 > example in the break after the defense. Yup, was thinking of HTTP/2 when I said "control data on the same connection as the payload". Can see from Pete's transcript that it didn't come across terribly clearly, though :P > I’ll use the opportunity to tell folks that I was also pretty > impressed with Toke’s thesis as well as his performance at the > defense. Thanks! It's been fun (both the writing and the defending) :) > With that, I wish all the best to all you bloaters out there - thanks > for reducing our queues! Yes, a huge thank you all from me as well; working with the community here has been among my favourite aspects of my thesis work! -Toke _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat