Hi all, Am 30.03.2017 um 11:08 schrieb Jonathan Morton: > >> On 30 Mar, 2017, at 10:46, Bob Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> For PI2 we removed all but 2 and it worked the same or better than PIE in >> all our tests. I have been assessing each of the other 7 one by one for >> reinstatement. So far I've rejected 6. I think I can reject this last one by >> making the sampling time of the base PI algo dependent on the max link rate. >> Then when the queue goes idle, the base PI algo will decay drop down to zero >> no slower than the queue drains, without needing this extra heuristic. > > That’s fair enough. > > It sounds like the fairly coarsely discrete time intervals in PIE are the > main justification for this particular heuristic, so it might be sufficient > to document that WRT PIE itself. Using finer time intervals is clearly a > better choice for the future. PIE uses time intervals for measurement purposes and several parameters contribute. We've recently done some basic work on measurement methodology that facilitates a comparison of different measurement approaches and better-informed parametrization by introduction of the "memory" concept. https://atlas.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~menth/papers/Menth17c.pdf PIE essentially implements TDRM-DTWMA-UEMA illustrated in Fig. 6d.
The concept of "memory" can also be applied to moving averages which are also used in PIE for several purposes. Configuration via a "memory" can make some heuristics more intuitive. Best wishes, Michael > > - Jonathan Morton > -- Prof. Dr. habil. Michael Menth University of Tuebingen Faculty of Science Department of Computer Science Chair of Communication Networks Sand 13, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany phone: (+49)-7071/29-70505 fax: (+49)-7071/29-5220 mailto:[email protected] http://kn.inf.uni-tuebingen.de _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
