Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> writes:
> Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> On 17 Apr, 2018, at 12:42 pm, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> - The TCP RTT of the 32 flows is *way* higher for Cake. FQ-CoDel
>>> controls TCP flow latency to around 65 ms, while for Cake it is all
>>> the way up around the 180ms mark. Is the Codel version in Cake too
>>> lenient, or what is going on here?
>>
>> A recent change was to increase the target dynamically so that at
>> least 4 MTUs per flow could fit in each queue without AQM activity.
>> That should improve throughput in high-contention scenarios, but it
>> does come at the expense of intra-flow latency when it's relevant.
>
> Ah, right, that might explain it. In the 128 flow case each flow has
> less than 100 Kbps available to it, so four MTUs are going to take a
> while to dequeue...
OK, so I went and looked at the code and found this:
bool over_target = sojourn > p->target &&
sojourn > p->mtu_time * bulk_flows * 4;
Which means that we scale the allowed sojourn time for each flow by the
time of four packets *times the number of bulk flows*.
So if there is one active bulk flow, we allow each flow to queue four
packets. But if there are ten active bulk flows, we allow *each* flow to
queue *40* packets.
This completely breaks the isolation of different flows, and makes the
scaling of Cake *worse* than plain CoDel.
So why on earth would we do that?
-Toke
_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
