Pete Heist writes:
>> On Apr 18, 2018, at 7:43 AM, Pete Heist wrote:
>>
>> I also think I saw this happen at lower bandwidths as well, when the CPU
>> wasn’t loaded. What I’ll do is re-test on the current version I have at,
>> say, 50Mbit (or to where load drops substantially), then update to
> On Apr 18, 2018, at 7:43 AM, Pete Heist wrote:
>
> I also think I saw this happen at lower bandwidths as well, when the CPU
> wasn’t loaded. What I’ll do is re-test on the current version I have at, say,
> 50Mbit (or to where load drops substantially), then update to the head and
> test agai
I also think I saw this happen at lower bandwidths as well, when the CPU wasn’t
loaded. What I’ll do is re-test on the current version I have at, say, 50Mbit
(or to where load drops substantially), then update to the head and test again,
and let you know...
Pete
> On Apr 17, 2018, at 3:52 PM,
> On 16 Apr, 2018, at 11:55 pm, Pete Heist wrote:
>
> I remember that fairness behavior at low RTTs (< 20ms) needed to be either
> improved or documented
The reason for the behaviour, IIRC, was that throughput dropped below 100% when
the latency target was reduced too much. Since then there h
Pete Heist writes:
>> On Apr 16, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>
>> Dave Taht writes:
>>
>>> do we consider cake ready this time?
>>
>> I'm not aware of anything outstanding, at least...
>
> Do I have the release cycle right that it would have to be upstreamed
> by “about
> On Apr 16, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Dave Taht writes:
>
>> do we consider cake ready this time?
>
> I'm not aware of anything outstanding, at least...
Do I have the release cycle right that it would have to be upstreamed by “about
10 weeks” from now and would en
