From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleksandr Natalenko Subject: Re: TCP and BBR: reproducibly low cwnd and bandwidth Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 00:06:23 +0100 Message-ID: <2829276.7yTBvbjqgd@natalenko.name> References: <1697118.nv5eASg0nx@natalenko.name> <1518821435.55655.6.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Eric Dumazet , Neal Cardwell , "David S. Miller" , Netdev , Yuchung Cheng , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh , Jerry Chu , Dave Taht To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from vulcan.natalenko.name ([104.207.131.136]:57192 "EHLO vulcan.natalenko.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751020AbeBPXGZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:06:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1518821435.55655.6.camel@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On p=E1tek 16. =FAnora 2018 23:50:35 CET Eric Dumazet wrote: > /* snip */ > If you use >=20 > tcptrace -R test_s2c.pcap > xplot.org d2c_rtt.xpl >=20 > Then you'll see plenty of suspect 40ms rtt samples. That's odd. Even the way how they look uniformly. > It looks like receiver misses wakeups for some reason, > and only the TCP delayed ACK timer is helping. >=20 > So it does not look like a sender side issue to me. To make things even more complicated, I've disabled sg on the server, leavi= ng=20 it enabled on the client: client to server flow: 935 Mbits/sec server to client flow: 72.5 Mbits/sec So still, to me it looks like a sender issue. No?