Hi,
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 08:31:01AM +0200, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 2021, at 02:47, Erik Auerswald <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:49:00PM +0200, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> >>> On Apr 5, 2021, at 14:46, Rich Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dave Täht has put me up to revising the current Bufferbloat article
> >>> on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bufferbloat)
> >>> [...]
> >> [...] while too large buffers cause undesirable increase in latency
> >> under load (but decent throughput), [...]
> >
> > With too large buffers, even throughput degrades when TCP considers
> > a delayed segment lost (or DNS gives up because the answers arrive
> > too late). I do think there is _too_ large for buffers, period.
>
> Fair enough, timeouts could be changed though if required ;) but I fully
> concur that laergeish buffers require management to become useful ;)
Yes, large unmanaged buffers are at the core of the bufferbloat problem.
One can make buffers small again, or manage them appropriately.
The latter promises better results, the former is much simpler.
Thanks,
Erik
--
Am I secure? I don't know. Does that mean I should just disable all
security functionality and have an open root shell bound to a well known
port? No. Obviously.
-- Matthew Garret
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
