Re: [aqm] PIE departure rate estimation

"Rong Pan (ropan)" <ropan@cisco.com> Wed, 01 April 2015 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ropan@cisco.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 E71471A1A27 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 V46HxfTLqdFH for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A2941A1B23 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9325; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427923381; x=1429132981; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=xYuADPF2rw4nLJqMVahjClkKoIDUolkcabmurP7NjbY=; b=J58sAD5097z3XfCmTrdEQ+DDBifY8e8eUSoGjK1IfZWVkZ07CZi/rXam h/1oV7TNHKKHuk1kKFHGbItzKQ+xwNixK217Xgm/e3Kgejob4QUUzS/mR O7Iz9bjXhXbal0pUU2zV6fS3S5paCfwB9AUje6NYsOq/EV9+tne4YuqI0 A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A5BgD3YBxV/4YNJK1cgkNDUlwFw12CAIVzgUJMAQEBAQEBfYQUAQIELV4BCA4DAwECKDkUCQoEARKILgENzmIBAQEBBgEBAQEBAQEbiymEaA2EOAWQY4NyhgSBHYMyglyNFSKDbm8BgUN/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,506,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="408856398"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2015 21:23:00 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t31LMxTK026813 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 21:22:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.109]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:22:59 -0500
From: "Rong Pan (ropan)" <ropan@cisco.com>
To: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] PIE departure rate estimation
Thread-Index: AQHQbMIGW+ot0iZ1OU6OZ2/eKhmRQQ==
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 21:22:58 +0000
Message-ID: <D141ACCB.D99D%ropan@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [171.70.247.185]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D141ACCBD99Dropanciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/Rsjg7vauvTF6Ueh2a_e9a5KEKl4>
Subject: Re: [aqm] PIE departure rate estimation
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: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 21:23:08 -0000

Dave,

Thanks for the valuable comments. We will see how we can incorporate them. For the comments below, please see inline.

Regards,

Rong


From: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com<mailto:ddolson@sandvine.com>>
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 1:22 PM
To: "aqm@ietf.org<mailto:aqm@ietf.org>" <aqm@ietf.org<mailto:aqm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [aqm] PIE departure rate estimation

In https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-pie-00#section-4.3,

it says, “We only measure the departure rate when there are sufficient data in the buffer”

Why can’t departure rate be estimated regardless of queue size? Just count packets leaving over time? I’m wondering how to avoid the estimate getting stuck at the last value sampled when the queue had a certain quantity in it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>RP: We need to make sure that there are enough data in the queue to guarantee a rate sample. The reason is that if a queue is empty from time to time, we can't measure its true draining rate. The time when the queue empty should be cut out of the drain time calculation. For simplicity, it is better to make sure we have enough data in the queue to ensure accurate rate measurement sample.

Section 4.2 cites Little’s Law as “est_del = qlen/depart_rate”,
but according to Wikipedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little%27s_law>aw>, the law uses arrival rate, not departure rate.
I don’t know if it matters (I didn’t read Little’s proof), but this gives credence to the suggestion in section 6 that the algorithm could use arrival rate.
And I think it might be easier to measure when the queue has few items in it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>RP: what you mentioned is to calculate average number of customers in a system using the arrival. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little's_law Wikipedia also mentions that mean responseTime = MeanNumberInSystem / MeanThroughput. What we measure is the mean response time (latency). Hence, it is correct in our draft.

David Dolson
Senior Software Architect, Sandvine Inc.