public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Craig Milo Rogers <rogers@ISI.EDU>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: "Mathieu Giguere (LMC)" <lmcmgig@lmc.ericsson.se>,
	"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Claude LeFrancois (LMC)" <lmcclef@lmc.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: UDP stop transmitting packets!!!
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:10:37 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9186.984780637@ISI.EDU> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:28:49 PST." <15026.34193.887865.142525@pizda.ninka.net>

>In fact, the current choice is optimal.  If the problem is that we are
>being hit with too many packets too quickly, the most desirable course
>of action is the one which requires the least amount of computing
>power.  Doing nothing to the receive queue is better than trying to
>"dequeue" some of the packets there to allow the new one to be added.

	A study by Greg Finn <finn@isi.edu> determined that randomly
dropping packets in a congested queue may be preferable to dropping
only newly received packets.  Dropping only newly-arrived packets can
be suboptimal, depending upon the details of how your packets are
generated, of course. YMMV.

"A Connectionless Congestion Control Algorithm"
Finn, Greg
ACM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 19, No. 5., pp. 12-31,Oct. 1989.

	The way I view this result is that each packet is part of a
flow (true even for most UDP packets).  Dropping a packet penalizes
the flow.  All packets in a queue contribute to the queue's
congestion, not simply the most recently-arrived packet.  Dropping a
random packet in the queue distributes the penalty among the flows in
the queue.  Over the statistical average, this is more optimal than
dropping the latest packet.

					Craig Milo Rogers

  reply	other threads:[~2001-03-16 22:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-03-16 21:16 UDP stop transmitting packets!!! Mathieu Giguere (LMC)
2001-03-16 21:28 ` David S. Miller
2001-03-16 22:10   ` Craig Milo Rogers [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-03-16 21:43 Mathieu Giguere (LMC)
2001-03-16 21:46 ` David S. Miller
2001-03-16 21:47 Mathieu Giguere (LMC)
2001-03-16 21:52 ` David S. Miller

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=9186.984780637@ISI.EDU \
    --to=rogers@isi.edu \
    --cc=davem@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lmcclef@lmc.ericsson.se \
    --cc=lmcmgig@lmc.ericsson.se \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox