Re: [aqm] [Cake] paper: per flow fairness in a data center network

Luca Muscariello <luca.muscariello@gmail.com> Thu, 13 December 2018 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <luca.muscariello@gmail.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 D1579128D0C for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:51:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 kc_HCrTM9O7R for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com (mail-ot1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C2F12426E for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id a11so1308611otr.10 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:51:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N3JSO0V1Uz1aHMEG+BnpW0QX03DEMAv4RsaB8cAPD4o=; b=EgZoho8jqebx7dxST2i4pU5FPuHlpOnYtct8G/jKkELZGmZj9Kch1e77ivfLLeFSk3 ZF1kdDveQ3m+snaU138gF07gpxB3VLS24hE1UKACJkG/n6WaOgUSx8Uf73ZfZ07Ai81v JlOzTtNGu1brSQh31pm7wpXWCLS7OyldOwpDdSNnJZIyT5gU1GRwKL1Mchl+Yovn/8L7 78ke9w+//2u4DQ2T10SHIqUZZm279Zva+8hTPYp2Nm220AMiKHl/K7XRpWaecchdIJDb 55TzYC+i56ZG9KeRTc4znkWjhabE82odWpvnFZtCC/V39oCrcQpnOGm8lFTO55GzZNOv MIlw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N3JSO0V1Uz1aHMEG+BnpW0QX03DEMAv4RsaB8cAPD4o=; b=rvCKJTkKQPF+iALDXAgaFL6U1CVZHLN8VNMnri49sM80kQ0mpitKfFWqeGEKHjFEBO bNYfLMyUI7Bp2tcr32KQey8ZPPDBQUK8yVn8E57260E1cV5/cI6imzcSiA9uC3XKS5md KwNPG6/ysocbO2GB68mUP9g1ywW2ufp3inLzRw0eFrCxfK77YePHFyEttt/yOKrRLvco EIN2opq6nqVcFxvgfj32D6XGYw+fcgoO3OrewkohYX5Nn2ut7hu2fRiHRn7ZcV//8+nI wnKxFDpp+vKOImUnkVd++LfIZ2cdSW9PuexVKen75fA5ycb7fddpXnqbiiBMPJtEyig8 F+Ww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZ4/FmXmQZvESfhtgRAbFD9T8ZG1Hue6FnyHhy+Yd+hcxDz5PNz QmtbVI6nccXR//sZ4u6D29YJM5tohPGlpX9HefY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VJPo9dc1t7nOhKzhVoHWwiUfjVSWVOvnwyHm6uParfPvtGFfTesNnek+0MmoGdhqBhklmXHddeb2uMk19FOjc=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3a5:: with SMTP id f34mr16980947otf.208.1544694688984; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:51:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA93jw58CW6We3NCa=F60yqvCPuvOexpRJQWS6M_k_5WnXUmhw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw58CW6We3NCa=F60yqvCPuvOexpRJQWS6M_k_5WnXUmhw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Luca Muscariello <luca.muscariello@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:51:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHx=1M4QCx7LbxcdnUo-Y0QxCWhUUu2ZqqyZmuMtsWJZ9FNgew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Cc: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>, AQM IETF list <aqm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000039342f057ce442a0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/WMxqpjv981c1BnX-aVgDO8X-c8w>
Subject: Re: [aqm] [Cake] paper: per flow fairness in a data center network
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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 Dec 2018 09:51:32 -0000

I disagree on the claims that DC switches do not implement anything.
They do, from quite some time now.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/nexus-9000-series-switches/white-paper-c11-738488.html



On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:19 AM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>; wrote:

> While I strongly agree with their premise:
>
> "Multi-tenant DCNs cannot rely on specialized protocols and mechanisms
> that assume single ownership and end-system compliance. It is
> necessary rather to implement general, well-understood mechanisms
> provided as a network service that require as few assumptions about DC
> workload as possible."
>
> ... And there's a solid set of links to current work, and a very
> interesting comparison to pfabric, their DCTCP emulation is too flawed
> to be convincing, and we really should get around to making the ns2
> fq_codel emulation fully match reality. This is also a scenario where
> I'd like to see cake tried, to demonstrate the effectiveness (or not!)
> of 8 way set associative queuing, cobalt, per host/per flow fq, etc,
> vs some of the workloads they outline.
>
> https://perso.telecom-paristech.fr/drossi/paper/rossi18hpsr.pdf
>
> --
>
> Dave Täht
> CTO, TekLibre, LLC
> http://www.teklibre.com
> Tel: 1-831-205-9740
> _______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
>