Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-08.txt)
David Ros <David.Ros@telecom-bretagne.eu> Thu, 20 October 2011 08:35 UTC
Return-Path: <David.Ros@telecom-bretagne.eu>
X-Original-To: ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A170321F84F8 for <ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 olI1gRVEtlIV for <ledbat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.115.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7E221F84DF for <ledbat@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2009.11.10) with ESMTP id p9K8Zjnh025281; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:35:45 +0200
Received: from courrier.enst-bretagne.fr (smtps.enst-bretagne.fr [10.29.90.4]) by coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2009.11.10) with ESMTP id p9K8Zbc6025238; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:35:41 +0200
Received: from eduroam-193-157-113-173.uio.no (passerelle-interne.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.117.210]) (user=dros mech=PLAIN bits=0) by courrier.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/2010.02.22) with ESMTP id p9K8ZYPs017002; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:35:35 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: David Ros <David.Ros@telecom-bretagne.eu>
In-Reply-To: <DBB1DC060375D147AC43F310AD987DCC42D5AEBA11@ESESSCMS0366.eemea.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:35:34 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <52C453CB-2B0D-4B74-AB8D-17DC524B8AF7@telecom-bretagne.eu>
References: <mailman.154.1319050820.6601.ledbat@ietf.org> <DBB1DC060375D147AC43F310AD987DCC42D5AEBA11@ESESSCMS0366.eemea.ericsson.se>
To: Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at enst-bretagne.fr
Cc: "jana.iyengar@gmail.com" <jana.iyengar@gmail.com>, "ledbat@ietf.org" <ledbat@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-08.txt)
X-BeenThere: ledbat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of the LEDBAT WG <ledbat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ledbat>, <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ledbat>
List-Post: <mailto:ledbat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledbat>, <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:35:54 -0000
Hi, INIT_CWND = MIN_CWND = 2 sounds reasonable, and it seems to take care of the points raised -- including apps that generate nothing but short flows using LEDBAT (seems like a bad choice of CC for such apps, IMHO) -- except one. The only thing remaining would be the filtering of delay values (the draft says INIT_CWND = 4 to initialize the filter in the first RTT), but I'd venture that this is not necessary? i.e. taking a bit more time to seed the filter doesn't look as if it'll break LEDBAT's CC? Thanks, David. Le 20 oct. 2011 à 07:21, Ingemar Johansson S a écrit : > Hi > > Change of subject name. > I have no strong opinion on this but I would like to ask how likely it is that LEDBAT is used for shortlived flows in the first place. The CC-algo does not seem to me as the obvious pick of I was looking for instance for fast HTTP request/response times. Given that it seems like minor issue what the INIT_CWND is if the flows are 10minutes in duration or perhaps more. > MIN_CWND is another matter, that should possibly be fixed to relatively small value like 2. > > /Ingemar > >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:14:53 -0700 >> From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> >> To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk >> Cc: Janardhan Iyengar <jana.iyengar@gmail.com>, ledbat@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [ledbat] New Version Notification for >> draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion-08.txt >> Message-ID: <4E9F058D.4040909@isi.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Hi, Gorry, >> >> I agree with your logic, but it suggests INIT_CWND and >> MIN_CWND should be 2 - those are both clearly safe, clearly >> smaller than the current deployed base, and would not >> increase to track TCP's increases. >> >> Joe >> >> On 10/19/2011 12:26 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >>> On 18/10/2011 20:27, Joe Touch wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/18/2011 8:29 AM, David Ros wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry if I'm getting this totally wrong, but: is it really >>>>> *necessary* >>>>> that LEDBAT's INIT_CWND be *smaller* than TCP's? As far as I >>>>> understand, the point of LEDBAT is to be >> less-than-best-effort over >>>>> (relatively) long timescales, or at least over time scales longer >>>>> than one (initial) RTT. And just starting up as TCP won't make it >>>>> *more* aggressive than TCP. Is this correct?? >>>> >>>> No, but it could make it a lot like TCP if the offered load is in >>>> short bursts. If that's not the intent, then the INIT_CWND >> needs to >>>> be smaller than TCP's. >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I think INIT_CWND should not be significantly bigger than >> *deployed* >>> TCP INIT_CWND. (It may of course be desirable to be smaller or the >>> same, and that would benefit in the way Joe suggested). >>> >>> When I suggested "4" could be OK, this was only 1 larger >> than current >>> usage for a 1500B MTU, and equivalent for some smaller MTU. >> That to me >>> is not "significantly bigger". It would seem OK, because if this >>> induced congestion LEDBAT would react within INIT_CWND >> segments in a >>> conservative way. >>> >>> If we care about LEDBAT being conservative compared to other TCP >>> sessions, then I really think we should not track future >> new proposals >>> to raise INIT_CWND. I suggest this would have side effects: >>> >>> - It could make LEDBAT more aggressive than *deployed* TCP >>> implementations, that I think would be bad. >>> >>> - It may require LEDBAT to implement additional algorithms >> to ensure >>> it is conservative when the larger INIT_CWND induces congestion. >>> Addressing this would likely add complexity to LEDBAT and make it >>> dependent on these TCP updates (if any). >>> >>> I think a larger INIT_CWND (e.g. by tracking any evolution of TCP's >>> INIT_CWND) is unwarranted if the goal is for LEDBAT to target bulk >>> less-than-best-effort use. I cannot see the case yet for a LEDBAT >>> INIT-CWND beyond 4. Raising this could indeed save an RTT >> at the start >>> of a LEDBAT flow, but this would be at the expense of making it >>> (slightly) more aggressive than presently deployed TCP. This seems >>> undesirable. >>> >>> I also suggested that MIN_CWND should similarly be fixed to >> a small number. >>> >>> Gorry >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ledbat mailing list >> ledbat@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledbat >> >> >> End of ledbat Digest, Vol 33, Issue 9 >> ************************************* >> > _______________________________________________ > ledbat mailing list > ledbat@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledbat > ================================================================= David ROS http://www.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr/~dros/ "It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent whatsoever," he said. "Have you thought of going into teaching?" -- Terry Pratchett
- [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New Vers… Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New … Gengyu WEI
- Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New … David Ros
- Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New … Joe Touch
- Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New … Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New … David Ros
- Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New … Joe Touch
- Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New … Joe Touch
- Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New … Ingemar Johansson S
- Re: [ledbat] INIT_CWND and MIN_CWND (WAS Re: New … Mirja Kuehlewind