That is a big mountain to climb
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> Done fixing the home. It's time to fix the rest of the internet. And
> that's not just queue theory but address assignment and routing.
> Here's
> a traceroute from where I sit in Nicaragua
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Luca Muscariello
wrote:
> Sanity check: the active flow list in Jim's work is very compact
> as it counts only the flows with a packet in the queue.
> So you need to read that paragraph with this in mind. Then you'll agree :)
>
> I have
Sanity check: the active flow list in Jim's work is very compact
as it counts only the flows with a packet in the queue.
So you need to read that paragraph with this in mind. Then you'll agree :)
I have a reasonable proof that what cake is doing is truly sane.
You just need to compare cake to
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Luca Muscariello
wrote:
> I think the closest scheduler to Cake is this one, if I have to compare:
>
> https://team.inria.fr/rap/files/2013/12/KOR05.pdf
Try as I might, at workloads that I've been able to create (I did just
add 10GigE
I think the closest scheduler to Cake is this one, if I have to compare:
https://team.inria.fr/rap/files/2013/12/KOR05.pdf
J. Roberts et al. Implicit Service Differentiation using Deficit Round
Robin, In Proc of ITC 2005.
Luca
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Jonathan Morton
To this day I regret mis-identifying fq-codel with SFQ in that first talk.
And they ripped the idea of codel out entirely in their evaluation.
"Drop-on-dequeue is inspired by new AQMs like CoDel, but we pursue a
very simple approach. A packet is dropped if it is older than a
con gurable delay
This popped up in my Google Scholar notifications:
https://atlas.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~menth/papers/Menth18b.pdf
Basically, they are proposing to permit a queue to accumulate a larger
deficit while empty to allow light users to achieve the same throughput
as heavy users (users being an