Michael Welzl <[email protected]> writes: > but that's FQ (or FQ_CoDel's changed FQ variant), much more than the > AQM mechanism in use (as we have also seen presented by Toke at the > last ICCRG meeting).
Well, actually, that presentation did also include an evaluation of the AQMs in an asymmetrical scenario. And that shows that while generally ARED does perform fairly well, it tends to be a bit on the aggressive side. In the asymmetrical case this results in too many drops on the slow side of the asymmetrical link (typically upload), hurting throughput in the other direction due to lost ACKs. There's also some other issues in there, with PIE and CoDel in particular, most notably their reactions when conditions change: it can take tens of seconds for the algorithms to get queueing latency under control in this case. Slides for the IETF presentation available here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-iccrg-4.pdf There's also a longer version of the talk (from the Stanford Netseminar) available on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kePhqfKA3SM > But this discussion is about AQM mechanisms, not (changed)FQ. While the academic side of me enjoys studying AQMs (and I'm still far from anything resembling a thorough understanding of them), the practical "I just want my network to work" side of me has become increasingly convinced (in part by doing the experiments in the above mentioned talk) that FQ is more important than AQM in many scenarios. As such, I think that excluding FQ from the conversation is mostly of, well, academic interest ;) -Toke _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
