IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] Dummynet AQM v0.1- CoDel and FQ-CoDel for FreeBSD's ipfw/dummynet

Polina Goltsman <polina.goltsman@student.kit.edu> Sat, 27 February 2016 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <polina.goltsman@student.kit.edu>
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 EE4D81AD186 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:53:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] 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 FfPq9Fn3vT35 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:53:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scc-mailout-kit-02.scc.kit.edu (scc-mailout-kit-02.scc.kit.edu [IPv6:2a00:1398:9:f712::810d:e752]) (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 30D391AD0D6 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:53:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kit-msx-32.kit.edu ([2a00:1398:9:f612::32]) by scc-mailout-kit-02.scc.kit.edu with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (envelope-from <polina.goltsman@student.kit.edu>) id 1aZj3o-0002d4-Ty; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:53:47 +0100
Received: from localhost.localdomain (84.179.102.22) by smtp.kit.edu (129.13.50.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:53:44 +0100
To: Dave Täht <dave@taht.net>, AQM IETF list <aqm@ietf.org>
References: <6545444AE21C2749939E637E56594CEA3C187192@gsp-ex02.ds.swin.edu.au> <56D1DB2E.1050903@taht.net>
From: Polina Goltsman <polina.goltsman@student.kit.edu>
Message-ID: <56D1E2AF.8030802@student.kit.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:53:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56D1DB2E.1050903@taht.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [84.179.102.22]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ftFFUQN1de4eQUJBU-fMJvRF7Do>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Dummynet AQM v0.1- CoDel and FQ-CoDel for FreeBSD's ipfw/dummynet
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: <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: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 17:53:53 -0000


On 02/27/2016 06:21 PM, Dave Täht wrote:
>
> On 2/26/16 6:17 AM, Rasool Al-Saadi wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I would like to announce that we (myself and Grenville Armitage) released Dummynet AQM v0.1, which is an independent implementation of CoDel and FQ-CoDel for FreeBSD's ipfw/dummynet framework, based on the IETF  CoDel [1] and FQ-CoDel [2] Internet-Drafts.
>> We prepared patches for FreeBSD11-CURRENT-r295345  and FreeBSD 10.x-RELEASE (10.0, 10.1, 10.2), and a technical report  of our implementation.
>>
>> Patches and documentation can be found in:
>> http://caia.swin.edu.au/freebsd/aqm
>>
>> Technical report:
>> http://caia.swin.edu.au/reports/160226A/CAIA-TR-160226A.pdf
> In browsing this it appears that shaped rates were tested only (?). I am
> curious what native performance (10,100,1gbit) looked like. I think that
> freebsd lacks a BQL-like mechanism to control the driver queues, and on
> the other hand freebsd did not go as nuts with offloads as linux did. Is
> this code generally applicable (to things like pfsense?)
>
> Aside from that, looks pretty good. I am curious also as to what caused
> the offset difference in sawtooth pattern between linux and bsd
> implementations (like in fig 2) Different initcwnd? ssthresh? don't seem
> to be it -  linux reno vs bsd reno?
I can't distinguish between the maximum congestion windows, but Linux's RTT
(especially the minimum one) is smaller on all three figures (2,3, and 4),
and packet losses for FreeBSD are a little less frequent. So, assuming that
the AQM behaves the same, there is another queue somewhere.

What is strange is that Linux's goodput is higher on figures 2 and 3 
despite
lower queueing delay. On the other hand for Cubic both delay and goodput are
slightly smaller. Is that advanced loss recovery in Linux?

Also, is it normal that NewReno resets its congestion window (to initcwnd)
after each packet loss aka. why it looks like Tahoe? Does CoDeL go into
dropping more than one packet per RTT if the RTT is much smaller than an
interval?
>>
>>
>> [1] "Controlled Delay Active Queue Management",  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-codel-02
>> [2] "FlowQueue-Codel" , https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-04
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rasool Al-Saadi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email