IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] how much of a problem is buffer bloat today?

Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com> Thu, 21 March 2013 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <g.white@CableLabs.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A9E21F9178; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VrBmo6mdY6Lf; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C9721F8F44; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2LGx4bn003862; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:59:04 -0600
Received: from exchange.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.19) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:59:04 -0600 (MDT)
X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com)
Received: from EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com ([fe80::797a:96d1:3c53:18ee]) by EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com ([fe80::797a:96d1:3c53:18ee%11]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:59:03 -0600
From: Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>
To: Graham Beneke <graham@apolix.co.za>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] how much of a problem is buffer bloat today?
Thread-Index: AQHOH/Zy6Y2ujr6xyky0EcKlL8uw15ikI2qA///Q/gCAAFGcgIAMepqA//+qP4A=
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:59:03 +0000
Message-ID: <C38E406F654CD249AB7D30B93B0207F517F5E4AE@EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <514B2FE9.90101@apolix.co.za>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117
x-originating-ip: [10.4.1.127]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <88FA79DEB375EF42B2E096171593333A@cablelabs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Approved: ondar
Cc: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] [tsvwg] how much of a problem is buffer bloat today?
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:59:19 -0000

....cross posting to aqm.

On 3/21/13 10:06 AM, "Graham Beneke" <graham@apolix.co.za> wrote:

>On 13/03/2013 19:32, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013, Greg White wrote:
>> 
>>> Some may consider 100ms a big number.
>
>I've heard the 100ms figure thrown about quite a bit. In the VoIP world
>its considered to be the pain threshold for a reasonable call experience
>and for "general Internet" (aka http browsing) it doesn't normally
>impact the user experience notably.

Web browsing *is* sensitive to RTT (though maybe less so than VoIP or
gaming).  Page load time increases linearly with RTT (at approximately
10x-20x).  So adding 100ms of *unnecessary* buffering latency adds ~1-2
seconds of *unnecessary* delay to page loads.

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status