> So there have been no packets dropped and there is no backlog and the
> path is clean all the way to the Internet without any congestion in my
> network (the path is currently about 5 times bigger than current
> bandwidth utilization and is 10GigE all the way from the switch to
> which the server
> Philosophical rhetorical question: If the bottlenecks are all outside
> your network, where do you expect a queue to build up? Where are you
> storing packets that can't be sent right away?
>
> I'd think the TCP congestion control algorithms would be the thing to
> worry about, rather than qdisc
On 05/31/2011 03:17 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 11:07 -0700, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 21:24, George B. wrote:
But assuming my network, as a server of content is not over
subscribed, what would you suggest as the best qdisc for such a
traffic profile? In ot
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 11:07 -0700, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 21:24, George B. wrote:
> > But assuming my network, as a server of content is not over
> > subscribed, what would you suggest as the best qdisc for such a
> > traffic profile? In other words, I am looking at this
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 21:24, George B. wrote:
> But assuming my network, as a server of content is not over
> subscribed, what would you suggest as the best qdisc for such a
> traffic profile? In other words, I am looking at this from the server
> aspect rather than from the client aspect.
Phil
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> If most of your clients are mobile, you should use a tcp congestion control
> algorithm such as Westwood+ which is designed for the task. This is designed
> to distinguish between congestion and random packet losses. It is much less
> ag
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:29 AM, George B. wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:24 PM, George B. wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, say I have a network with no over subscription in my net.
> >
> > I'd love to see one of those. Can I get on it?
>
>
If most of your clients are mobile, you should use a tcp congestion control
algorithm such as Westwood+ which is designed for the task. This is designed to
distinguish between congestion and random packet losses. It is much less
aggressive at filling buffers than the default CUBIC.
Your main b
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:24 PM, George B. wrote:
>>
>> Ok, say I have a network with no over subscription in my net.
>
> I'd love to see one of those. Can I get on it?
Well, we currently have the potential for some microburst oversub
insi
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:24 PM, George B. wrote:
> Ok, say I have a network with no over subscription in my net.
I'd love to see one of those. Can I get on it?
> I have
> 10G to the internet but am only using about 2G of that. This is the
> server side of a network talking to millions of c
FIFO and traffic shaping - every time
Neil
On 30 May 2011, at 05:24, George B. wrote:
Ok, say I have a network with no over subscription in my net. I have
10G to the internet but am only using about 2G of that. This is the
server side of a network talking to millions of clients. The clients
Ok, say I have a network with no over subscription in my net. I have
10G to the internet but am only using about 2G of that. This is the
server side of a network talking to millions of clients. The clients
in this case are on "lossy" wireless networks where packet loss is not
an indication of co
12 matches
Mail list logo
