Subject: Re: [aqm] [Bloat] big science discovers sch_fq and pacing

From: "Bill Ver Steeg (versteb)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:17:52 +0000

I like this phrase - "On some long paths (50-80ms RTT)"

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder......

Bvs

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Taht
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 3:21 AM
To: bloat; [email-masked]
Subject: [Bloat] big science discovers sch_fq and pacing

https://fasterdata.es.net/host-tuning/linux/fair-queuing-scheduler/

-- 
Dave Täht
What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone?
https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

---

From: Rick Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:53:22 -0700

On 05/31/2015 10:08 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> My favourite part of that is "disabling TSO leads to a doubling in
> throughput". In precisely the sort of situation that TSO was intended to
> help throughput.

Perhaps my recollection of history is suffering from bitrot, but I 
thought the situation TSO was intended to help was when there wasn't 
enough CPU horsepower on the sender to enable achieving the desired 
transfer rate when going up and down the protocol stack at just 1460ish 
bytes at a time.  One of the reasons it was called (at least by some in 
early days) "Poor Man's Jumbo Frames."

happy benchmarking,

rick jones

---

From: Tristan Seligmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:22:46 +0000

Wow, I *wish* the RTT of most of my paths were 80ms! (I'm in South Africa)

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 at 15:18 Bill Ver Steeg (versteb) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Taht