In general my hope for the bufferbloat email list is to close the loop between industry, open source, and academia. Academic authors (now cc´d) have a tendency to not publish sources (?), and as the wait from test to publication is so long, move onto other things, even if it is a promising technique that could use further development and eyeballs. Me, I wanted to know what wifi they tested for this, and do strongly feel that slow start in the field is presently much larger than widely recognised in academia coming from various cdns.
On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 5:17 AM Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote: > > What I am missing in this and similar papres are tests what happens if the > proposed scheme is actually used quantitatively over the internet... > The inherent idea seems to be if one would know the available capacity one > could 'jump' the cwnd immediately to that window... (ignoring the fact the > rwnd typically takes a while to increase accordingly*). My gut feeling tells > me this will make dynamics at bottleneck queues even more volatile, not sure > whether that will result in an overall better outcome. > te > Sidenote: this is again a packet pair method with a side helping of "delay" > increase measurements (inside the driver stack, so conceptually related to > BQL/AQL) so the challenges are all the same. > > > *) Finally, the rwnd selection module is used to determine whether the value > of receiver window (rwnd) embedded in the ACK packet should be ignored, > according to the judgement whether it reveals the exhaustion of the > receiver’s buffer, thus to remove the restriction of rwnd on slow start > acceleration. > Erm, I think this paper should have been rejected on this argument alone... > this is exactly the mind set (I know better then my communication partner) > that results in a non- or sub-optimally working internet... I wish that those > that do not appreciate slow-start would leave their fingers off it. > Not saying that slow-start is perfect, but if you ignore the components that > make slow-start effective your replacement likely will not cut it. The fact > that slow-strat gradually ramps up the cwin (and pretty aggressively) is one > of its features and not a bug, as the alternative of jumping directly to the > appropriate capacity for each flow requires an oracle... so a "perfect" > solution is clearly out of reach and all we are talking about is different > shades of "good enough" (and to repeat myself, whether a solution is good > enough does not solely depend on whether the solution if implemented at a > single end-node delivers "better" numbers for that end-node but also on its > effect on the rest of the network).** > > **) I occasionally wish for a tit-for-tat scheduler that is generous at first > but will "retaliate" if a flow abuses that generosity... > > > > > > On 28 December 2023 04:50:59 CET, Dave Taht via Bloat > <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >> >> I am very happy to be seeing various advances in slow start techniques. >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Li-Lingang-2/publication/372708933_Small_Chunks_can_Talk_Fast_Bandwidth_Estimation_without_Filling_up_the_Bottleneck_Link/links/64d1a210806a9e4e5cf75162/Small-Chunks-can-Talk-Fast-Bandwidth-Estimation-without-Filling-up-the-Bottleneck-Link.pdf >> >> -- 40 years of net history, a couple songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9RGX6QFm5E Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
