Hi Dave,
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 19:22, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There was a very good paper or two (I think luca co-authored one) that > showed that "active flows" were generally measured in the mid 200s in > nearly any scenario. I agreed with that which was in part why I felt > we could stick > with 1024 queues, a direct mapped hash, and a couple collisions. > > cake can falsify that conclusion, or not - at least with ecn enabled, > it does falsify it. I think. Can't remember the paper's name.... I believe you are looking for ( https://team.inria.fr/rap/files/2013/12/KMOR04.pdf ): "On the Scalability of Fair Queueing" Best Regards Sebastian > > whether or not accepting 3x more delay as in this case is good, > well... more measurements await via > https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/ecn-sane/wiki/ and the ecn-sane > mailing list is now active. > > My original cake code dropped ecn on overload. I tended to think a > little ecn a good thing. > > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:10 AM Pete Heist <p...@heistp.net> wrote: >> >> Interesting, sounds like a good data point for the ECN debate. I wonder if >> that pathology happens at lower flow counts. >> >> I’ve been getting into FreeNet’s backhaul. Four of their backhaul links, the >> orange lines in the following map, are licensed spectrum full-duplex 100Mbit >> wireless links (not sure what tech, I’ll ask). I’ve so far not witnessed any >> bloat in these links because they seem to be over-provisioned based on the >> rates of the CPE connections, although that may change as AC is increasingly >> deployed. >> >> http://mapa.czfree.net/#lat=50.76176199690661&lng=15.06277084350586&zoom=13&autofilter=1&type=satellite&geolocate=98%7C114%7C111%7C117%7C109%7C111%7C118%7C115%7C107%7C97&node=6101&aponly=1&bbonly=1&actlink=1&actnode=1&tilt=0&heading=0& >> >> Active flow counts appear to be in the tens sometimes, probably not hundreds >> very often, from what I’ve witnessed so far... >> >> On Aug 30, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This version does indeed work against net-next. I managed to break >> myself because I'd been fiddling with flows 32 in some cases, and my >> version >> returns ENOTSUPP for that which sqm doesn't catch... and ohhh.... >> boy... htb with a 1000 packet fifo buffer fallback... SUCKS! :) >> >> As for profiling, once again I found myself distracted by the ecn >> debate. Fitting ecn 500 flows through a 100mbit bottleneck results in >> 1300 packets outstanding >> 26 flows that can't start (presumably due to ecn fall back), and >> without ecn, 450 packets outstanding 3 flows that can't start. >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:23 AM Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I'm presently compiling against net-next. >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:12 AM Pete Heist <p...@heistp.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Aug 29, 2018, at 3:04 AM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Anyway, this should be a drop in replacement (presently) for fq_codel, >> that compiles out of tree and rips out almost everything I don't like. >> >> https://github.com/dtaht/fq_codel_fast >> >> >> Cool…I’d give it a quick run but it doesn’t compile for me (attached). >> Kernel version? >> >> I think the tc filter thing really hurt us in cake. >> >> >> It would be interesting to see how much. Jon also expressed concern and I’d >> been meaning to try some benchmarks before and after that change… >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dave Täht >> CEO, TekLibre, LLC >> http://www.teklibre.com >> Tel: 1-669-226-2619 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dave Täht >> CEO, TekLibre, LLC >> http://www.teklibre.com >> Tel: 1-669-226-2619 >> >> > > > -- > > Dave Täht > CEO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-669-226-2619 > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake