On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Rick Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/24/2012 08:19 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> writes: >>> The UDP ping tests tend to not work so well on a loaded link, >>> however, since netperf stops sending packets after detecting >>> (excessive(?)) loss. Which is why you see only see the UDP ping times on >>> the first part of the graph. >> >> >> Netperf stops UDP_STREAM exchanges after the first lost udp packet. > > > The UDP_STREAM test will keep blasting along until the end-of-test timer > fires. It is the non-burst-mode UDP_RR test which comes to a halt on the > first lost datagram. > > >> After staring at the tons of data collected over the past year, on >> wifi, I'm willing to strongly suggest we just drop TCP packets after >> 500ms in the wifi stack, period, as that exceeds the round trip >> timeout... > > > How does WiFi "know" what the TCP RTO for a given flow happens to be? There > is no 500 millisecond ceiling on the TCP RTO.
the lightspeed equivalent of 1 and half times around the planet is enough time to spend inside of one computer. As for the RTO, you're right... sorta. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6298 But I cannot see any harm in wifi, in simply dropping > 500ms old packets, in the general case, and a lot of potential good. > > rick jones -- Dave Täht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html _______________________________________________ Codel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel
