Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC PTO is too conservative, causing a measurable regression in tail latency (#3526)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Thu, 28 May 2020 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95C23A07F5 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 18:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.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 a6lP2So1PiVi for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 May 2020 18:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-27.smtp.github.com (out-27.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EA383A07EE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 18:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-d1d6e31.ash1-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-d1d6e31.ash1-iad.github.net [10.56.105.50]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6303BE08D8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 May 2020 18:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1590629006; bh=A9GiQc9VG9hRNr9LWb5dJdkIXZyZzOlT7ZKByXrRNNc=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=fiX8YoZh9X/m5rGrFe/0YKw1ezXbEYgJL817ZqPh93kL0ZyGdNdX+9+GAXomZfGIp TOC+1fS936wsBZEwv2E1z5btieDmFEfZUM7fBD++BDi1irtNGd5+OTBFz4OvyiQUZy U4WH+n0QyqlEkl+dzbR7ZvX8zV+I3p3a70fuzMr4=
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 18:23:26 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK6V746CZ57NR6JJKSF43LZY5EVBNHHCFNKKLA@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3526/635035382@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3526@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3526@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] QUIC PTO is too conservative, causing a measurable regression in tail latency (#3526)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ecf128e53b77_34c43fd601ccd9607032e"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/_8-YT8ZVifHv5UeymKJcjOEV4Bk>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 01:23:29 -0000

> I ran a test for 4 days on a major country

This probably shouldn't make me nervous, but it still does.  But I still greatly appreciate the data.

For my own peace of mind (though you will never alleviate the nervousness), can you confirm that you track both observed loss rates AND the rate of spurious retransmission?  It strikes me that there would be high correlation between improvements in latency and real loss, so the loss rates probably don't change except where the faster transmission coincides with true congestion (which I would expect to be undetectable), and the same is likely also true for spurious retransmission, but I just wanted to confirm.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3526#issuecomment-635035382