On 28/02/16 13:39, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Alan Jenkins <[email protected]> writes:
I wouldn't complain that I can't sustain 2056Kbps goodput when my fair
share of the shaped bandwidth is 2000Kbps. The results might be
showing a significant degradation, or it could be a marginal one that
pushes over the boundary (between the 2056k and 1427k encodes). Which
of those conclusions you start from might be influenced by whether
you're developing a different AQM, hmm.
Exactly. And note how they just so happen to pick 11 total flows (10
competing, one video) to share the bottleneck, putting the per-flow
throughput just below the rate needed to go up one quality level. What a
coincidence. At least it shows how difficult it is to design experiments
that put fairness queueing in a bad light ;)
Ug. I try not to assume malice. It does indeed come across as motivated
absence of curiosity.
We ran a test where Product A scores better than Product B. Buy Product
A today!
* difference in presented results is within margin of error
** did you notice our "pass" threshold was literally over 100%? That the
technology commonly assumed to provide fairness breaks down in this
test? No? <simpsons character="Mr. Burns> _Excellent_.
Oh, and of course HAS is in itself a hack to work around badly managed
queues in the network. In a nicely fairness queued world, we could do
away with HAS entirely and just, y'know, stream things at the desired
rate...
-Toke
Nah. You do want to handle a variable number of users, without making
them fiddle with rates when that number changes.
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
