Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results

>> I'm saying that there's a tradeoff between intra-flow induced latency and >> packet loss, and I've chosen 4 MTUs as the operating point. > > Is there a reason for picking 4 MTUs vs 2 MTUs vs 2 packets, etc? To be more precise, I'm using a sojourn time equivalent to 4 MTU-sized packets per

Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Jonathan Morton wrote: I'm saying that there's a tradeoff between intra-flow induced latency and packet loss, and I've chosen 4 MTUs as the operating point. Is there a reason for picking 4 MTUs vs 2 MTUs vs 2 packets, etc? ___

Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results

> On 18 Apr, 2018, at 6:17 pm, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > > Just a thought, in egress mode in the typical deployment we expect, the > bandwidth leading into cake will be >> than the bandwidth out of cake, so I > would argue that the package droppage might be acceptable on

Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results

>>> So if there is one active bulk flow, we allow each flow to queue four >>> packets. But if there are ten active bulk flows, we allow *each* flow to >>> queue *40* packets. >> >> No - because the drain rate per flow scales inversely with the number >> of flows, we have to wait for 40 MTUs'

Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results

Jonas Mårtensson writes: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > >> Toke Høiland-Jørgensen writes: >> >> > Jonathan Morton writes: >> > >> >>> On 17 Apr, 2018, at 12:42 pm, Toke

Re: [Cake] A few puzzling Cake results

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Toke Høiland-Jørgensen writes: > > > Jonathan Morton writes: > > > >>> On 17 Apr, 2018, at 12:42 pm, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen > wrote: > >>> > >>> - The TCP RTT of