Re: [aqm] CoDel on high-speed links

2015-06-10 Thread Steven Blake
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 14:56 -0700, Dave Taht wrote: > I certainly would like you to try factoring in fq_codel's effects into > your calculations. 1024 queues is the default, > with 64k queues possible. If you assume 10k flows, you can readily > assume a pretty equal distribution across those avail

Re: [aqm] CoDel on high-speed links

2015-06-10 Thread Dave Taht
oops, I did not mean to take this offlist. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > I care about this stuff, I strongly support the need for aqm on high > speed links also... > > but my own focus is mostly on shorter term stuff at much lower rates, > like wifi, and I am relying on othe

Re: [aqm] CoDel on high-speed links

2015-06-10 Thread Dave Taht
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Simon Barber wrote: > My concern with fq_codel is that by putting single flows into single Codel > instances you hit the problem with Codel where it limits bandwidth on higher > RTT paths. I recently did a bit of work, testing rtt_fairness from my location (los ga

Re: [aqm] CoDel on high-speed links

2015-06-10 Thread Dave Taht
I certainly would like you to try factoring in fq_codel's effects into your calculations. 1024 queues is the default, with 64k queues possible. If you assume 10k flows, you can readily assume a pretty equal distribution across those available queues, with 1k codels compensating madly. I tend to thi

Re: [aqm] CoDel on high-speed links

2015-06-10 Thread Agarwal, Anil
To follow up on Steve's posting - here is a simple (simplistic) analysis to estimate the time taken by CoDel to converge to the right value of the interval I. Perhaps, similar analysis has been done elsewhere. Analysis of Single Queue CoDEL for large number of TCP connections. Given: Link C

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-04.txt

2015-06-10 Thread Mirja Kühlewind
Hi Gorry, hi Michael, to catch up with this: I think most of my comments were addressed. Especially the restructuring and removing of all normative language is good. Thanks! The one point I'm still not super happy with is section 3.6 and 3.6.1. I don't think it reflects the problems and opportu

Re: [aqm] FQ-PIE kernel module implementation

2015-06-10 Thread Polina Goltsman
Hello all, If I understood the code correctly, in fq_pie there is a single PIE instance that controls all "fq" queues. In contrast in fq_codel there is a separate instance of codel for each queue. Is this the case? If it is, doesn't it contradict with original idea of fq_something where each