y'all are well on your way towards writing a paper on this topic. Need collaborators? On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:32 AM Jendaipou Palmei <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Jonathan, > > Thanks for the quick reply. > > We have uploaded the plots for the 'count' variable of COBALT (with a segment > size of 1500 and 1000 bytes). > > Link: https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Cobalt-Drop-Count > > We have not yet implemented ECN feature in COBALT, so packets are currently > dropped instead of being marked. > > Are these the plots that you were referring to? > > Thanks and Regards > Jendaipou Palmei > Shefali Gupta > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:28 PM Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On 30 Nov, 2018, at 1:53 pm, Jendaipou Palmei <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > However, we finally noticed that it was the packet size used in our >> > simulations that was affecting the throughput. It was earlier set to 1000 >> > bytes, and after making it 1500 bytes (including headers) we note that the >> > throughput is not affected. >> > >> > We have uploaded the new graphs on the same wiki link: >> > https://github.com/Daipu/COBALT/wiki/Light-Traffic >> > >> > We're not sure why packet size is affecting the throughput so largely. Is >> > it the expected behavior? >> >> That particular effect is probably accidental. >> >> Is it possible to also show graphs of the packet marking (or dropping) rate? >> That may be revealing. >> >> - Jonathan Morton >>
-- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740 _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
