netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).