| > * I quite frequently got those messages from tfrc_calc_x, like
| >
| > tfrc_calc_x: Value of p (29) below resolution. Substituting 100
| >
| > This should not happen - I believe that these p measurements are bogus
| > and we should check if the loss rate computation is ok.
|
| Is this saying loss is very small? If so then it might be right - I
| was getting 40 Mbits/sec and got about 5 of these in 20 seconds. 5
| packets out of 200,000 is a very low rate of loss.
This was with a transmit rate of 94.9 Mbits/sec, payload length 1424, and about
500 warnings complaining of a p of 29 in
20 sec * 94.9 Mbits/sec * 1/(1424 * 8 bits) = 166608 messages
So it is 500/166608 ... approximately 0.3% ...
A loss of p = 29 * 1E-6 would mean that about 5 messages were lost ... indeed not much :-)
I was thinking: maybe have tfrc_calc_x substitute a p=0 instead.
| > * the behaviour of iperf is very unpredictable, sometimes it seems that
| > throughput is directly related to current system load
| >
| Iperf is totally predictable with TCP. So is ttcp with TCP. Both are
| unpredictable with DCCP. Therefore I think the problem is DCCP. I also
| agree that system load makes a difference. Just did some quick tests
| on my P4 1.2 GHz machine - my fastest :-( . Iperf on TCP uses 75% of
| available CPU and there is idle time. Iperf on DCCP uses 100% of
| available CPU and no idle time.... So DCCP sucks the CPU and this
| explains some of our issues. Andrea was on the right track when he
| said we need to profile it..
I can confirm the above - I have been testing on a relatively wide range of hardware,
and I get the best performance only out of the most recent types of computers (Xeon,
Dual-Core). Even uniprocessor P4 2.4Ghz struggles to go above 50Mbits/sec.
You are right, profiling seems inevitable ... something to rtfm about.
|
| > * the RTT values are almost always higher than the RTT computed by ICMP
| > ping - highly desirable to find ways of obtaining sharper estimates
| >
| How much higher? I didn't use to see this when using dccpprobe but
| haven't tested recently.
Ping gives about 0.1 msec, the logs say up to 10000 microseconds, which are a factor
of 100. You also said something about inflated RTT values earlier.
| > * would it make sense to define an RTT cut-off value, such as e.g. 2MSL
| > (120 seconds) and regard all RTT estimates above this value as nonsensical?
| > E.g.: #define DCCP_SENSIBLE_RTT_VALUE_MAX 120 * USEC_PER_SEC
| >
| It would make sense to put debugs to say when this is happening as we
| have bugs in if we are getting readings like that. Even have it at 4
| seconds - remember what the speed of light is and how far you can get
| in that time - there's no need to have it as high as 120 seconds.
Yes, but -- switching delay? What is a reasonable assumption -- 60 seconds?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
