Yup!
Loss is a bit of like hitting someone with a 2 x 4 as a clue-stick. It
hurts, but it sure does work!
--dave
On 02/27/2015 09:16 PM, KK wrote:
This could also be done by not having to depend on Œloss¹ as the primary
source of feedback...
On 2/27/15, 6:00 PM, David Collier-Brown
This could also be done by not having to depend on loss¹ as the primary
source of feedback...
--
K. K. Ramakrishnan
Professor
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside
Rm. 332, Winston Chung Hall
Tel: (951) 827-2480
Web Page: http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~kk/
IMHO, removing latency is the aim of FQ. Once done, buffer sizes can be
unbounded (save by price (;-))
--dave
On 02/27/2015 01:52 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message 2134947047.1078309.1424979858723.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Havey writes:
I know that this question is a
In message 2134947047.1078309.1424979858723.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Havey writes:
I know that this question is a bit ridiculous in this community. Of
course bufferbloat is a real problem. However, it would be nice to
formally address the question and I think this community
Having done many experiments in many locations, I can tell you it is a real
problem and a severe problem, in the real world.
I can observe it every time I fly from Boston to San Jose and back (which I do
once per month). If you use Gogo (the provider that supports several airlines'
network
Switching to gmail because Yahoo is too horrible to use.
Like I said, I agree that bufferbloat is only 1 part of a two sided
problem. The queue with respect to each flow can be either two large
or too small (and sometimes just right?). Anyways, I'm just wondering
if there are any measurement
Have to hop on a plane soon. But yes and yes! I think you are talking about
the queue sizing problem as I like to call it instead of bufferbloat. I have
some work in that direction in my dissertation defense that I am about to give.
However, I also have an exigent problem. In that same
