On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 17:59 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 03:26:27PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > BTW if a paced flow from Google shares a bloated buffer with a non paced > > flow from a non Google server, doesn't this turn out to be a performance > > penalty for the paced flow? > > Nope. The paced flow puts less strain on the buffer (and hooray for that), > which is a win no matter if the buffer is contended or not. > > > fq_codel gives incentives to do pacing but if it's not deployed what's the > > performance gain of using pacing? > > fq_codel doesn't give any specific incentive to do pacing. In fact, if > absolutely all devices on your path would use fq_codel and have adequate > buffers, I believe pacing would be largely a no-op.
While this might be true for stationary flows (ACK driven, no pacing is enforced in sch_fq), sch_fq/pacing is still nice after idle period. Say a flow deliver chunks of data. With pacing, you no longer have to slow start after idle. _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
