Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE...
Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> Thu, 13 November 2014 04:40 UTC
Return-Path: <dave.taht@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B16C1A1B6A for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:40:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, MANGLED_EMAIL=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tcUXFyIKr2ge for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:40:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BD131A1B75 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:40:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id i138so2248698oig.26 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:40:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hi56BmL86xc6oeZ24dI8eZbP1Zdmi7cNZ1udp1rrmes=; b=sbFtxb0aRLWL+BXBc4StLk7Kl8C8NewBe7IlxYL5ps+6sy923IVYio0sLE9eR1YPyd DLNFQZreO0NcNpVrH9nJ6SsbM9/sy49in9ki97UucTY/69I6XOX/Cc3laBJVaskcCxq2 a0LRCGAJHI7u29NI0EzeLPuGzvrW1X5fD2eM06vqtVJai19EaVFv4zrFWHImGZGEd43d JXMYKOjKsi38HihSme7s1H8jHnzyTAe2mHkeMWUfFkGbnE9xRX7KZL7gQ8IDjbhz1PX3 iksNW3BNTEGIjsjNi7gW4F1F7dLIAhw2xQdq+TmYD3txBoESqJF58jC7uNAPP0uQNa4J OA6Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.171.77 with SMTP id u74mr74229oie.24.1415853638485; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.227.211 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:40:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <cf344e47f30e4cd49afa04280b4cbeef@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
References: <D086F727.B6AF%ropan@cisco.com> <5463F169.6020805@gmail.com> <cf344e47f30e4cd49afa04280b4cbeef@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:40:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA93jw6hL6dPxRvz2tM5xZeV32HU81tGg+a9NzVr6y=brf325Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/KllswRZNkoF-vr8OUqNE0Yc295g
Cc: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE...
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 13 Nov 2014 04:40:42 -0000
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Scheffenegger, Richard <rs@netapp.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I believe these papers may qualify that requirement: > > http://ipv6.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DOCSIS-AQM_May2014.pdf This documents the docsis-pie implementation which has rather a few basic improvements on pie by itself, notably bytemode, some predictive stuff, and drop-semi-derandomization. It also uses overlarge and not-recomended-by-the-inventors constants for codel and sfq_codel, and lumps together all results at all bandwidths, where, as we've shown, current aqm implementations perform differently at different bandwidths and RTTs. The earlier paper covered the bandwidth scenarios more broadly and in depth, with less twiddling of the constants. I also had a very long post on this list going into the problems with the testing done here. which I'll search for unless someone beats me to it. Some of the tools used in this evaluation landed in ns2 earlier this year, and I would certainly like these tests reproduced independently, with sane values for codel and fq_codel, and preferably against a simulator I trust more, like ns3. > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6925768 Yep. Toke points to codel's falloff at higher rates in his paper also - this is mostly due to a problem in the control law introduced in the linux version that isn't in the ns2 version, and is nearly invisible in the fq_codel version. I do fear a similar problem is in PIE when dealing with TSO packets but have not tested. And the load transients are a problem with any straight aqm system. > https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/37381 I have picked apart this paper elsewhere also. I would have liked it, if in particular, fq_codel had been used throughout the tests in comparison, particularly with ecn.... To add to the comparisons: http://caia.swin.edu.au/reports/140630A/CAIA-TR-140630A.pdf While quite good, this was kind of limited to steady state performance, and at rates below 10mbit. I was delighted to see someone actually use cerowrt for it's intended purpose, evaluating each new algorithm on real hardware in their bachelor's thesis, but I can't find that url right now. > tl;dr - both pie and codel camps did some independent implementations and testing of the respective other algorithm, I tracked codel, fq_codel, pie, improvements to red (ared), sfq, sfqred, and SFB closely for the past 4 years. All of these are in linux 3.14 or later (with pie entering last). The ability to do basic testing of everything on the table is a download away, on nearly every linux distro, and cerowrt has 'em all - and openwrt several... I spent GSOC2014 getting ns3 up to speed. For some reason I don't seem to have any time to write papers myself... >with discussions and denting out some poorly described aspects in that process. It's my understanding that this lead to a better quality of the drafts in both instances. Ya know, I'm not part of the codel or pie "camp". I'm pretty firmly in the low knobs "fq + an aqm with ecn support" camp.There aren't a lot of people in a codel-only camp. The algorithm is a toolkit, much like pie is a toolkit for docsis-pie, and setting up the debate as codel vs pie feels like an exercise in dialectical dualism for sake of excluding the third alternative. Certainly codel the algorithm, and codel the stand-alone aqm can be improved (and I have patches for that available for a long time now) but it has taken a long time to have an adaquate suite of test tools to be able to analyze the often microscopic differences between versions of the base aqm algorithms, be the pie or codel or red derived. (for example I was unaware until I got a preview of toke's paper of the degree of decline in effectiveness in codel alone at 100Mbit, being focused primarily on finding improvements at 5mbit or below (the speed most of the edge of the internet runs at - and the hardware I use to test peaking out at about 60mbits before htb rolls over and dies on a cpu designed in 1989. So instead of fiddling with codel I've been fiddling with a better rate shaper embedded into fq_codel) I do certainly hope that work can move forward on the evaluation guidelines based on a wide variety of scenarios. In my own case, my biases are towards managing slow start better (vs steady state TCPs), capturing all the latency sources (e.g DNS, tcp syns), and enabling voip, gaming, web, and videoconferencing traffic better to the expense of full single flow goodput, at rates well below 100mbit, and typically at baseline physical rtts in the 4-50ms range. > I utterly agree that more testing is needed. However the only open source test suite (netperf-wrapper) only implements a few of the tests in the pie and docsis-pie papers, making reproduction difficult, and the earlier > > > Richard Scheffenegger > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: aqm [mailto:aqm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling >> Sent: Mittwoch, 12. November 2014 13:47 >> To: aqm@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE... >> >> [writing not as AD, but as random IETF participant] >> >> Sorry for this blunt question: >> >> Is there any other analysis made by an independent source, i.e., where not >> the PIE authors are running an analysis of PIE? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Martin >> >> Am 10.11.14 um 21:15 schrieb Rong Pan (ropan): >> > Please see our analysis paper on PIE... >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Rong >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > aqm mailing list >> > aqm@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aqm mailing list >> aqm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm -- Dave Täht thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks
- [aqm] analysis paper on PIE... Rong Pan (ropan)
- Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE... Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE... Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE... Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE... Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE... Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE... Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)