All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Douglas Leith <doug.leith@nuim.ie>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: Re the default linux tcp algorithm being changed from bic to cubic.
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:20:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <451BF65E.9000701@nuim.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060928071657.5d0cbf70@freekitty>

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:07:18 +0100
> Douglas Leith <doug.leith@nuim.ie> wrote:
> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I think we're all conscious of the fact that recent history contains 
>> quite a number of proposals for changes to tcp's congestion control 
>> algorithm for high bandwidth-delay product paths that on closer 
>> inspection have proved problematic in one way or another.   It seems to 
>> be a hard problem to solve, so maybe that's fair enough and hopefully 
>> we'll end up with a workable solution soon.
>>
>> Where I'm coming from here though is that bic was made the linux default 
>> a year or so ago at a time when there were essentially no tests 
>> available on its performance other than the infocom paper by Injong. 
>> Subsequent tests have since highlighted a bunch of issues with bic.  To 
>> my knowledge, we're currently in a similar situation with cubic as we 
>> were with bic back then i.e. essentially no independent tests 
>> investigating its behaviour.
>>
>> Of course I know Injong has posted some test results, but these are 
>> hardly independent as he's the author of both bic and cubic.  Have there 
>> perhaps been private tests carried out (e.g. by osdl) ?  If so, would it 
>> be possible to make them public ?  If not, well that would be good to 
>> know too.
> 
> My tests have been limited and showed no difference. It is worthy
> of more discussion as to what is best. Could you rerun your tests?

Unfortunately we haven't really looked at cubic at all to date as I 
didn't appreciate it was being seriously considered for the new default 
until Ian's post a few days ago.  It'll take a little time to free up 
some bandwidth in people's time here, but we'd be happy to rerun the 
previous tests with cubic as a priority and generally try to have an 
initial poke around.

Doug

Hamilton Institute
www.hamilton.ie

  reply	other threads:[~2006-09-28 16:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-09-28 10:07 Re the default linux tcp algorithm being changed from bic to cubic Douglas Leith
2006-09-28 14:16 ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-09-28 16:20   ` Douglas Leith [this message]
2006-09-28 15:32 ` Stephen Hemminger

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=451BF65E.9000701@nuim.ie \
    --to=doug.leith@nuim.ie \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.