On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:02 AM Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 4 Dec, 2018, at 12:31 pm, Jendaipou Palmei <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > 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? > > More-or-less, yes, though these actually show an internal state variable of > the Codel algorithm rather than the actual number of marks/drops per time > interval. I was hoping to see similar graphs for the reference-Codel and PIE > runs, since we can gain more insight from that, and PIE doesn't have an > internal "count" variable that corresponds with Codel. Nevertheless, the > view into "count" behaviour is interesting in itself, and I'd like to see the > corresponding graphs from reference Codel. > > An artefact visible in these graphs is an apparent lack of sampling while not > in the dropping state. Thus you seem to have a gradual ramp from 0 to 1 > count over the several seconds interval between activations, though in fact > the variable is discrete. It would be better to show that transition more > precisely. > > For study, it is also often helpful to zoom in on small time intervals to see > the dynamic behaviour of the algorithm, particularly during the transition > from slow-start to steady-state, where there is seemingly a big difference > between reference Codel and COBALT.
I'm loving the slow start result. > > Another interesting graph to produce for each algorithm and traffic type is > the instantaneous throughput of each flow. This offers insight into the > relative fairness of each algorithm, and might help to explain the anomaly > seen with 1000-byte packets and COBALT. Usually this graph also reveals, > through the shape of each throughput curve, which CC algorithm is in use - > currently I'm guessing NewReno. CUBIC and CTCP, which are also in common > use, would behave differently. a file showing the timestamp of each drop would be easier to post process. > > - 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
