If we can replicate the results of your test then I would say we're onto something.
On Monday, 10 October 2016, Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4 Oct, 2016, at 19:28, Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > >> Ha ha! I don't know if you're back from shopping yet...and I'm not > sure that I've broken it (cobalt branch)...but it has broken my router! > > > > Hmm. It’s been running all day with plenty of traffic over here - but > it did crash the very first time I loaded it, just not the second. I will > need to exercise it some more, preferably on a non-critical machine. > > Okay, that bug is fixed and I’ve made further improvements to the > triple-isolate algorithm. It no longer needs quite as much spaghetti logic > in the fast path, and might even be easier to understand from reading the > code, since it’s now more obviously a modification of DRR++ rather than a > brute-force wrapper around it. It should certainly give smoother behaviour > and be less CPU intensive in common cases. > > In brief, what I now do is to scale the *flow* quantum down by the higher > of the two hosts’ flow counts. I’ve even dealt with underflow of the > quotient using a dithering mechanism, which should also ensure that flows > random-walk out of lockstep with each other. > > It works sufficiently well that I was able to set Cake to 2.5Mbit > besteffort triple-isolate, then watch a 720p YouTube video on one machine > while another was downloading a game update using a 30-flow swarm. I’d > call that a success. > > Hammer away at it, and then we’ll see if we can merge it up to master. > > - Jonathan Morton > > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net <javascript:;> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake >
_______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake