why upload with adsl is faster than 100M ethernet ?
alex at relcom.net
Fri Oct 15 17:11:36 UTC 2004
CAR does not work like a regular link; no way. It works like a link with 0
Problem is that CAR drops packets which override bandwidth, do not query
them (and do not prioritize them), so it use TCP adaptation to the packet
drop, not to the delay/rtt. This thing works fine with drop levels about
1% - 5%, not more.
Traffic shaping works better (it query packets) but it's implementation @
Cisco makes it very unstable by the nature.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Bligh" <alex at alex.org.uk>
To: "Andy Dills" <andy at xecu.net>
Cc: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com>; "NANOG" <nanog at merit.edu>;
"Alex Bligh" <alex at alex.org.uk>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: why upload with adsl is faster than 100M ethernet ?
> --On 15 October 2004 12:31 -0400 Andy Dills <andy at xecu.net> wrote:
> > If the desire is to provide a simulated circuit with "x" bandwidth, CAR
> > does a great job, IFF you correctly size the burst: 1.5x/8 for the
> > burst, 3x/8 for the max burst.
> > The aggregate rate of the transfer is "x" in all the testing I've done.
> > How can you ask for more than the configured line rate? In my testing, I
> > noticed a pronounced saw-tooth effect with incorrectly configured
> > but with correctly configured bursts, the saw-toothing affect did not
> > prevent delivery of the configured throughput.
> It's a fair while ago now, we did a pretty full range of tweaking (both
> of max burst, burst size, and indeed of committed rate). We observed
> the following problems:
> a) The fudge factor that you needed to apply to get the right bandwidth
> depended heavily on (from memory)
> (i) TCP stacks either end, whether slowstart configured etc.
> (ii) path MTU
> (iii) Number of simultaneous connections
> (iv) Protocol type (e.g. TCP vs. UDP), and content (HTTP was for
> reasons to do with persistent connections typically different
> from FTP)
> We did indeed (until we found a better solution) manage to come up
> with a fudge factor that minimized customer complaints under this
> head (which was most of them), but it was essentially "let's wind
> everything up high enough that in the worst case of the above they
> get throughput not less than they have bought"; however, this meant
> we were giving away rather more bandwidth than we meant to, which
> made upgrades a hard sell.
> b) It *STILL* didn't work like normal TCP. We had customers with web
> servers behind these things who expected (say) a 2Mb service running
> constantly flatlined to operate like a 2Mb/s pipe running full (but
> not overfull) - i.e. they'd expect to go buy a level of service roughly
> equal to their 95th percentile / busy hour rate. When they were even
> slightly congested, their packet loss substantially exceeded what
> you'd see on the end of properly buffered (say) 2Mb/s serial link.
> If their traffic was bursty, the problem was worse. Even if you
> could then say "well our tests show you are getting 2Mb/s (or rather
> more than that)" the fact a disproportionate number of packets were
> being lost caused lots of arguments about SLA.
> c) The problem is worst when the line speed and the ratelimit speed
> are most mismatched. Thus if you are ratelimiting at 30Mb/s on a
> 100Mb/s, you won't see too much of a problem. If you are ratelimiting
> at (say) 128kbps on a 1Gb/s port, you see rather more problems.
> In theory, this should have been fixed by sufficient buffering and
> burst, but at least on Cisco 75xx (which is what this was on several
> years ago), it wasn't - whilst we found a mathematical explanation,
> it wasn't sufficient to explain the problems we saw (I have a feeling
> it was due to something in the innards of CEF switching).
> I know several others who had similar problems both before this and after
> it (one solving it by putting in a Catalyst with an ATM blade running LANE
> and a fore ATM switch - yuck - there are better ways to do it now). I
> am told that PXE stuff which does WFQ etc. in hardware is now up to this
> (unverified). But that's shaping, not rate-limiting.
More information about the NANOG