It's written to look like an academic paper, but it's pure marketing.
"Memory is cheap, we used a lot, so let's select some evidence that
argues this is a good thing."
As always with the coin-operated, the way to get them to change is to
offer additional information which
* captures their attention,
and, more importantly
* offers them a cheap way to /make more money/.
For example, a software change that make their big buffers not fill up
with elephants...
--dave
On 2021-07-02 12:59 p.m., Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 09:42:24 -0700
Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Debunking Bechtolsheim credibly would get a lot of attention to the
bufferbloat cause, I suspect." - dpreed
"Why Big Data Needs Big Buffer Switches" -
http://www.arista.com/assets/data/pdf/Whitepapers/BigDataBigBuffers-WP.pdf
Also, a lot depends on the TCP congestion control algorithm being used.
They are using NewReno which only researchers use in real life.
Even TCP Cubic has gone through several revisions. In my experience, the
NS-2 models don't correlate well to real world behavior.
In real world tests, TCP Cubic will consume any buffer it sees at a
congested link. Maybe that is what they mean by capture effect.
There is also a weird oscillation effect with multiple streams, where one
flow will take the buffer, then see a packet loss and back off, the
other flow will take over the buffer until it sees loss.
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
dave.collier-br...@indexexchange.com | -- Mark Twain
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
