Subject: [tcpm] testing the linux 'fair queuing' scheduler on 10G paths

From: Brian Tierney <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 06:57:55 -0700

Hi Folks:

I've been working with a researcher at FNAL to try out the Linux ' Fair
Queuing Scheduler'.

Initial test results are here, and are VERY promising:
   http://fasterdata.es.net/host-tuning/linux/fair-queuing-scheduler/

Has anyone else tested this on high bandwidth, high latency paths?

(and thanks to Matt Mathis for making me aware of this setting).

-- 
Brian Tierney, http://www.es.net/tierney
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet), Berkeley National Lab
http://fasterdata.es.net

---

From: Matt Mathis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:29:18 -0700

Brian has real data, independently validating some of the stuff that
Yuchung described at IETF 88.   (Brian got 4x performance improvements in
some cases!)

Yuchung's presentation is here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-tcpm-9.pdf

There are some prior results where pacing hurts performance: these
generally involve medium scale flows with bursty cross traffic. Given that
pacing increases TCP's "sampling coverage" of transient congestion, paced
TCP fares poorly in these environments.

These contrary results don't apply if:
- there is little cross traffic; or
- the cross traffic is also paced; or
- if the paced traffic is a very large ensemble of relatively small flows.

There are other people in this community who might benefit from pursuing
these algorithms.  They are upstream for a reason.

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Brian Tierney <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>
>