Oliver 

Every TCP transfer (which may be collection of web page accesses) that reaches 
an instantaneous packet rate in-excess of the capacity of the most constrained 
network element on the path causes such problems. 

This is a measurable phenomena, it is equipment/configuration dependant - but 
the non-stationarity introduced is of the order of several 100ms to seconds - 
we've got measurements that cover that range.

Such phenomena are a natural emergent consequence of the statistical packet 
sharing of *any* resource.

Neil

On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:26, Oliver Hohlfeld <[email protected]> 
wrote:

>> - Attempting to Skype with a bunch of web browser tabs open gives bad 
>> results. Closing the tabs made things better. (They been blaming the browser 
>> for "using too much memory". Now it's possible to think that it's a network 
>> problem.)
> 
> Sorry to be nitpicking on this, but what evidence / indications tells
> this is a networking problem? Why would the pages in the open tabs
> constantly sent large bulks of data that fill up the buffers? While
> there is certainly asynchronous communication over HTTP (Ajax etc.), I'm
> talking about traffic demands that can interfere with VoIP. This seems
> highly unlikely. Correlating every possible problem with bufferbloat
> without further investigation doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
>> - Another person reported that his network connection (wireless ISP, two 
>> hops to a wired network) seemed to work OK as long as his household was 
>> mostly downloading. But uploading much of anything really made things bad.
> 
> This is a known fact. Even Gettys reported this issue in his first paper.
> 
>> I posted the slides at 
>> http://www.bufferbloat.net/attachments/download/148/Bufferbloat-DLSLUG-Dec2012.pdf
> 
> Thanks for sharing this!
> 
> A few comments:
> 
> - Slide 12 reads wired to me. It assumes that the entire main memory is
> allocated to packet memory. How will the home router then run an OS and
> any sort of application on top of it? The argument is flawed.
> 
> - Codel and SFQ are not the only solutions to improve bad FIFO queues.
> Simple QoS mechanisms will do the trick as well (briefly mentioned on
> slide 12).
> 
> - Slide 14 presents a long list of devices that lack of implementations.
> While the problem has been demonstrated for the first half of the list,
> I'd be interested to see if Codel could improve DSLAMs and cable
> headends, that, to the best of my knowledge, hardly queue traffic and do
> not induce significant queuing delays.
> 
> Oliver
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Reply via email to