> On 28 Dec, 2023, at 12:17 pm, Sebastian Moeller via Bloat 
> <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> 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*). 

Yes, I've just got to the bit about selectively ignoring rwnd - that's a 
straight violation of TCP.  There may be scope for optimising congestion 
control in various ways, but rwnd is a fundamental part of the protocol that 
predates congestion control itself; it implements TCP's original function of 
"flow control".  Sending data outside the rwnd invites the receiver invoking 
RST, or even firewall action, which I can guarantee will have a material impact 
on flow completion time!

Slow-start already increases cwnd to match the BDP in at most 20 RTTs, and 
that's the extreme condition, starting from an IW of 1 segment and ramping up 
to the maximum possible window of 2^30 bytes (assuming an MSS of at least 1KB, 
which is usual).  The more recent standard of having IW=10 already shortens 
that by 3-4 RTTs.  It's an exponential process, so even quite large changes in 
available bandwidth don't affect the convergence time very much.  TCP's 
adaptation to changes in the BDP after slow-start is considerably slower, even 
with CUBIC.

I also note a lack of appreciation as to how HyStart (and HyStart++) works.  
Their delay-sensitive criterion is triggered not when the cwnd exceeds the BDP, 
but at an earlier point when the packet bursts (issued at double the natural 
ack-clocked rate) cause a meaningful amount of temporary queue delay.  This 
queuing is normally drained almost immediately after it occurs, *precisely 
because* the cwnd has not yet reached the true path BDP.  This allows 
slow-start to transition to congestion-avoidance smoothly, without a 
multiplicative-decrease episode.  HyStart++ adds a further phase of exponential 
growth on a more cautious schedule, but with essentially the same principle in 
mind.

The irony is that they rely on precisely the same phenomenon of short-term 
queuing, but observe it in the form of the limited delivery rate of a burst, 
rather than an increase in delay on the later packets of the burst.

 - Jonathan Morton
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Reply via email to