[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110309095659.1373c296@s6510>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:56:59 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas.nussbaum@...ia.fr>
Cc: Injong Rhee <rhee@...u.edu>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
sangtae.ha@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make CUBIC Hystart more robust to RTT variations
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:53:19 +0100
Lucas Nussbaum <lucas.nussbaum@...ia.fr> wrote:
> On 08/03/11 at 20:30 -0500, Injong Rhee wrote:
> > Now, both tools can be wrong. But that is not catastrophic since
> > congestion avoidance can kick in to save the day. In a pipe where no
> > other flows are competing, then exiting slow start too early can
> > slow things down as the window can be still too small. But that is
> > in fact when delays are most reliable. So those tests that say bad
> > performance with hystart are in fact, where hystart is supposed to
> > perform well.
>
> Hi,
>
> In my setup, there is no congestion at all (except the buffer bloat).
> Without Hystart, transferring 8 Gb of data takes 9s, with CUBIC exiting
> slow start at ~2000 packets.
> With Hystart, transferring 8 Gb of data takes 19s, with CUBIC exiting
> slow start at ~20 packets.
> I don't think that this is "hystart performing well". We could just as
> well remove slow start completely, and only do congestion avoidance,
> then.
>
> While I see the value in Hystart, it's clear that there are some flaws
> in the current implementation. It probably makes sense to disable
> hystart by default until those problems are fixed.
What is the speed and RTT time of your network?
I think you maybe blaming hystart for other issues in the network.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists