Le 25/09/2013 17:15, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 14:25 +0200, James Roberts wrote:
No one responded to Luca's Sept 1 comment (on the bloat list) that the
new code seems to do tail drop rather than longest queue drop.
If this is so, bandwidth sharing will not be fair since FQ alone is
not enough. This was shown in the previously cited Bell Labs
paper : http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/stiliadi/papers/jsac99.pdf. The
following table is copied from the paper.
This paper assumes TCP stack can push cwin packets in the queue.
We no longer have this behavior with linux.
If you have drops on FQ, then you have a serious problem with your
settings.
FQ is meant to be used on hosts, not on routers.
For routers, fq_codel is fine.
TCP Small Queues limits the number of packets in Qdisc for any tcp flow
(2 packets). Default FQ setting allows 10000 packets.
You can add tail drop on FQ if you really want, but I never had a single
drop in my FQ settings, on 20Gbps links and thousands of flows.
Therefore I did not add complexity to solve a non problem.
Then, I feel like FQ is a bad name to call this "newFQ".
It's an implementation of a fair TCP pacer. Which is very useful, but FQ
is kind of misleading, IMHO.
Luca
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
a...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
--
France Telecom R&D - Orange Labs
MUSCARIELLO Luca - OLN/NMP/TRM
38 - 40, rue du General Leclerc
92794 Issy Les Moulineaux Cedex 9 - France
Tel : +33 (0)1 45 29 60 37
http://perso.rd.francetelecom.fr/muscariello
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
