netdev - Re: [Bloat] Time in Queue, bufferbloat, and... our accidentally interplanetary network

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9dfc3c5eb811f2774b378fce0158b3e7@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:15:38 +0100
From:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	bloat-devel <bloat-devel@...ts.bufferbloat.net>,
	bloat <bloat@...ts.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] Time in Queue, bufferbloat, and... our accidentally  interplanetary network


On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:59:34 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:


> Adding a time limit is possible, all we need is a proper design and
> implementation :)
> 
> Here is my suggestion :
> 
> Design a new tfifo/tred qdisc, with following properties :
> 
> Adaptative RED, (ECN enabled + head drop), but instead of using
> bytes/packet qlen average, use time_in_queue average.

Question one: is anything wrong with sfb or choke as the basis, instead of
RED?

Question two: I submitted pfast_head_drop to drop more outdated data
instead of new data. Back in time I thought TCP _may_ experience benefits
because more up-to-date SACK data packets are saved. Are there any other
TCP advantages with head drop policy?

Hagen
--
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