Hi Jonathan, We believe we have spotted the issue now. The new plot is attached below.
Does it look as expected? [image: Updated_Graphs.png] Thanks and regards, Shefali Gupta Jendaipou Palmei On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:27 PM Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 21 Jan, 2019, at 1:35 pm, Shefali Gupta <shefaligup...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > We re-looked into the COBALT implementation to understand why it drops > the first packet later than CoDel. > > > > There was a bug in the data that was collected in 'drop timestamp > files'. We tried using a different approach to store packet drop times, and > now we see that COBALT indeed drops the first packet prior to CoDel's first > packet drop (image below). So the issue was that our previous approach of > storing the packet drop times in a file was not correct. > > > > Let us know your opinion. > > Okay, good catch. > > But the more serious problem is with the pattern of drops, which presently > looks much more like BLUE activity (random) than Codel (ramping > frequency). That seems to be unchanged in your new graph. > > Have you made any progress towards finding out why the queue is apparently > too short? Perhaps log the actual length of the queue when overflow drops > occur. > > - Jonathan Morton > >
_______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
