Hi Jerry,
isn't this the problem statement of Conex?
Again, you at the end host would gain little insight with Conex, but every
intermediate network operator can observe the red/black marked packets, compare
the ratios and know to what extent (by looking at ingress vs egress into his
network
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Jonathan Morton chromati...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 Aug, 2014, at 1:30 am, Dave Taht wrote:
Could I get you to also try HFSC?
Once I got a kernel running that included it, and figured out how to make it
do what I wanted...
...it seems to be
I am noticing (via WireShark traces) at times that Microsoft's (Windows 7)
receive window auto-tuning goes horribly wrong, causing significant buffer
bloat. And at other times, the tuning appears to work just fine.
For example, BDP suggests a receive window of 750k, and most often Windows
tunes
On 1 Sep, 2014, at 8:01 pm, Dave Taht wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Jonathan Morton chromati...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 Aug, 2014, at 1:30 am, Dave Taht wrote:
Could I get you to also try HFSC?
Once I got a kernel running that included it, and figured out how to make it
do
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Jonathan Morton chromati...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 Sep, 2014, at 8:01 pm, Dave Taht wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Jonathan Morton chromati...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 Aug, 2014, at 1:30 am, Dave Taht wrote:
Could I get you to also try HFSC?
Once
But this doesn't really answer the question of why the WNDR has so much
lower a ceiling with shaping than without. The G4 is powerful enough that
the overhead of shaping simply disappears next to the overhead of shoving
data around. Even when I turn up the shaping knob to a value quite
On 1 Sep, 2014, at 11:25 pm, Aaron Wood wrote:
But this doesn't really answer the question of why the WNDR has so much
lower a ceiling with shaping than without. The G4 is powerful enough that
the overhead of shaping simply disappears next to the overhead of shoving
data around. Even
