IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Fwd: Re: sce vs l4s comparison plots?

Tom Henderson <tomhend@uw.edu> Mon, 11 November 2019 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <tomhend@uw.edu>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33241200C3 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:14:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 KeLeJWqnAMnz for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout22.s.uw.edu (mxout22.s.uw.edu [128.95.242.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9ECB1200EC for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by mxout22.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW19.10) with ESMTP id xAB3DkPD032120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:13:48 -0800
Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 199so7509635wmb.0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:13:47 -0800 (PST)
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; bh=J2W/J8buUO3KjSzSm6jZak3Lkx/wVMIETBLivtPfAxA=; b=GllawGWMvTVyCi2VYNlwC9HgmdE8C963sZH9lkb3XApLhlEUjocf0rKmM0XAbdCclR kf22/bSx1XcPswRveqfDCgwi/v7QaQQghYWsIcC4y/lm/FcE4usBfRSCvIRZVNhJrlhc yMhGew+4fASRagCvbEtLDgWRS94ZMG6Z918X8Hepnk0Bn5l5FAgjLYDelhQC5c7SL0qA yW1zg2XPKNuoXR1ZY9AO7gEZ3SpEeawQ6njr3YpZKie1MKvH6QJSLW1wUp2fZNJlqb3E wfpp17x5m5UL5n+3C6iu7SALHiQMW7CfIAQ5o85i9tgkmbaApHNpSyje9wgvJy3vthuH q4xA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUkd4kycFK0yZrdRH153F3erQIXaNaVaRkSQT8pKisx8YfoUQKS n0NgAsR0acHA6VC4KyPmxIZwBaM4lSL0lweSPVpyUMldSxlXWCIoRJ0Y1vJegcQJS0txdUN9oID FY0iAZ4J5WWC0m1pm7lHh074yUeIB6bkNDWdTt1wQvxckUkg=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:dbc3:: with SMTP id e3mr17266363wrj.185.1573442026416; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:13:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwk2ZrjueMzmOB4uVNqy5cPnYijkzwmAF3emJkiXhEdWTEq8uBflv0dSYjWNEVzjPNotp0BxBivjg0Czsqnzvs=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:dbc3:: with SMTP id e3mr17266354wrj.185.1573442026180; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:13:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4b67d594-e4fc-92d8-fcdc-8384fcb7286b@tomh.org> <ea3f094e-3ad2-e9f2-d046-b1f14c46a4ea@tomh.org>
In-Reply-To: <ea3f094e-3ad2-e9f2-d046-b1f14c46a4ea@tomh.org>
From: Tom Henderson <tomhend@uw.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:13:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAC2TnRyjb1ax8H+03h-N+kzF2NRvbaS-pNO2tYFEedo6KAoNFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-PMX-Version: 6.4.8.2820816, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2019.11.11.30617, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.68.0, AntiVirus-Data: 2019.11.11.5680000
X-PMX-Server: mxout22.s.uw.edu
X-Sophos-SenderHistory: ip=209.85.128.72, fs=2138615, da=49891898, mc=20464, sc=3, hc=20461, sp=0, fso=36585634, re=5, sd=0, hd=30
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=X, Probability=10%, Report= TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1500_1599 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, CT_TEXT_PLAIN_UTF8_CAPS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0, FROM_EDU_TLD 0, IN_REP_TO 0, KNOWN_MTA_TFX 0, LEGITIMATE_SIGNS 0, MSG_THREAD 0, NO_URI_HTTPS 0, REFERENCES 0, SINGLE_URI_IN_BODY 0, SPF_PASS 0, SXL_IP_TFX_WM 0, URI_WITH_PATH_ONLY 0, WEBMAIL_SOURCE 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BODY_NO_MAILTO 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_NEG_HEUR 0, __DQ_NEG_IP 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0, __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_100_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_10_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_1K_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SC_1_P 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FUR_RDNS_GMAIL 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REFERENCES 0, __HELO_GMAIL 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MSGID_DOMAIN_NOT_IN_HDRS 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1 0, __RDNS_WEBMAIL 0, __REFERENCES 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SINGLE_URI_TEXT 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __SUBJ_FORWARD 0, __TO_IN_SUBJECT2 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NOT_IMG 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __URI_WITH_PATH 0, __X_GOOGLE_DKIM_SIGNATURE 0, __YOUTUBE_RCVD 0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/wM1rPyPeN4L2hu2Szwm4sRjFx_Q>
Subject: [tsvwg] Fwd: Re: sce vs l4s comparison plots?
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:14:48 -0000

Reposting an earlier message

> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] sce vs l4s comparison plots?
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 14:27:58 -0800
> From: Tom Henderson <tomh@tomh.org>
> To: Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>, tcpm@ietf.org
>
>

Dave, I missed replying earlier to a few of your points below (inline).
>
> On 11/9/19 3:05 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
>
> By default (when run without -x) flent captures very little metadata
> about the system it is run on (IP addresses, a couple sysctls, and
> qdiscs) but it's helpful to have. One example that would be in that
> metadata, is that I'm unsure if the ns3 data is using an IW4 or IW10?
>
> It sounds like you are rate limiting with htb? (to what quantum?)
>
> Another example, in more "native" environments running at a simulated
> line rate, BQL is quite important to have in the simulation
> also. there's been a couple papers published on BQL's benefits vs a raw
> txring, thus far, there's a good plot of what it does in fig 6 of:
>
> http://sci-hub.tw/10.1109/LANMAN.2019.8847054
>
>

in the ns-3 simulations posted, BQL is enabled on all links.

>
>
> Lastly...
>
> So far as I know ns(X) does not correctly simulate GSO/TSO even when
> run in DCE mode, but I could be out of date on that. TBF (and cake)
> do break apart superpackets, htb (+ anything, like fq_codel or dualq)
> do not.
>
>

Correct, we do not have an ns-3 model for GSO/TSO. Is it needed (in
the simulation) if BQL is enabled with small device queues?

- Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email