Hi Roland, It took me quite a lot of time to find this message in the thread... I read the paper you sent and I guess this is the first of a series as many things stay uncovered.
Just a quick question: why is X(t) always increasing with t? On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:26 AM Bless, Roland (TM) <roland.bl...@kit.edu> wrote: > Hi Luca, > > Am 27.11.18 um 10:24 schrieb Luca Muscariello: > > A congestion controlled protocol such as TCP or others, including QUIC, > > LEDBAT and so on > > need at least the BDP in the transmission queue to get full link > > efficiency, i.e. the queue never empties out. > > This is not true. There are congestion control algorithms > (e.g., TCP LoLa [1] or BBRv2) that can fully utilize the bottleneck link > capacity without filling the buffer to its maximum capacity. The BDP > rule of thumb basically stems from the older loss-based congestion > control variants that profit from the standing queue that they built > over time when they detect a loss: > while they back-off and stop sending, the queue keeps the bottleneck > output busy and you'll not see underutilization of the link. Moreover, > once you get good loss de-synchronization, the buffer size requirement > for multiple long-lived flows decreases. > > > This gives rule of thumbs to size buffers which is also very practical > > and thanks to flow isolation becomes very accurate. > > The positive effect of buffers is merely their role to absorb > short-term bursts (i.e., mismatch in arrival and departure rates) > instead of dropping packets. One does not need a big buffer to > fully utilize a link (with perfect knowledge you can keep the link > saturated even without a single packet waiting in the buffer). > Furthermore, large buffers (e.g., using the BDP rule of thumb) > are not useful/practical anymore at very high speed such as 100 Gbit/s: > memory is also quite costly at such high speeds... > > Regards, > Roland > > [1] M. Hock, F. Neumeister, M. Zitterbart, R. Bless. > TCP LoLa: Congestion Control for Low Latencies and High Throughput. > Local Computer Networks (LCN), 2017 IEEE 42nd Conference on, pp. > 215-218, Singapore, Singapore, October 2017 > http://doc.tm.kit.edu/2017-LCN-lola-paper-authors-copy.pdf > > > Which is: > > > > 1) find a way to keep the number of backlogged flows at a reasonable > value. > > This largely depends on the minimum fair rate an application may need in > > the long term. > > We discussed a little bit of available mechanisms to achieve that in the > > literature. > > > > 2) fix the largest RTT you want to serve at full utilization and size > > the buffer using BDP * N_backlogged. > > Or the other way round: check how much memory you can use > > in the router/line card/device and for a fixed N, compute the largest > > RTT you can serve at full utilization. > > > > 3) there is still some memory to dimension for sparse flows in addition > > to that, but this is not based on BDP. > > It is just enough to compute the total utilization of sparse flows and > > use the same simple model Toke has used > > to compute the (de)prioritization probability. > > > > This procedure would allow to size FQ_codel but also SFQ. > > It would be interesting to compare the two under this buffer sizing. > > It would also be interesting to compare another mechanism that we have > > mentioned during the defense > > which is AFD + a sparse flow queue. Which is, BTW, already available in > > Cisco nexus switches for data centres. > > > > I think that the the codel part would still provide the ECN feature, > > that all the others cannot have. > > However the others, the last one especially can be implemented in > > silicon with reasonable cost. >
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat