--Apple-Mail=_ABF7926A-1900-4764-8923-19F36C6CD2BB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Barry, it's hard to see anything on your plots. Could you please put the dumps somewhere so that I can download them? I will run tcptrace/xplot by my self. Alex Am 16.08.2011 um 22:37 schrieb Barry Constantine: > Hi Anil, > > Attached is a Word document with the sequence charts from Wireshark. > > The 64KB and 128KB window sizes are shown for each OS. > > Thanks, > Barry > > -----Original Message----- > From: anil@cmmacs.ernet.in [mailto:anil@cmmacs.ernet.in] > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 4:24 PM > To: Barry Constantine > Cc: anil@cmmacs.ernet.in; end2end-interest@postel.org > Subject: RE: [e2e] TCP Performance with Traffic Policing > > Hi Barry: > > Would be glad to see the plots/sequence data in case you would like to > share them. > > If the cause is burst, then the next interesting question whould be: why > the same TCP sender reacted quite differetnly to different (standard) > clients when the policing was in between and normal otherwise. > > Anil > >> Hi Anil, >> >> Your assessments seem reasonable and I will look at the packet captures >> with Wireshark as you suggest. >> >> Also, thanks for pointing me to the old post; it was useful as well. >> >> -Barry >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: anil@cmmacs.ernet.in [mailto:anil@cmmacs.ernet.in] >> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 3:15 PM >> To: Barry Constantine >> Cc: end2end-interest@postel.org >> Subject: Re: [e2e] TCP Performance with Traffic Policing >> >> Hi Barry, >> >> Quite interesting >> >> I would guess that the different flows (Linux, XP and Win7) in your >> experiment might have expressed varying bursty patterns, and that would >> have made the policing process to treat these flows differently. A time vs >> sequence plot on either side of the policing box should help to bring out >> the real dynamics. >> >> Also, there was a similar post in e2e almost about a decade ago. >> http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/2002-June/002154.html >> >> It is worth having a look >> >> Anil >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I did some testing to compare various TCP stack behaviors in the midst >>> of >>> traffic policing. >>> >>> It is common practice for a network provider to police traffic to a >>> subscriber level agreement (SLA). >>> >>> In the iperf testing I conducted, the following set-up was used: >>> >>> Client -> Delay (50ms RTT) -> Cisco (with 10M Policing) -> Server >>> >>> The delay was induced using hardware base commercial gear. >>> >>> 50 msec RTT and bottleneck bandwidth = 10 Mbps, so BDP was 62,000 bytes. >>> >>> Ran Linux, Windows XP, and Windows 7 clients at 32k, 64k, 128k window >>> (knowing that policing would >>> kick in at 64K) >>> >>> Throughput for Window (Mbps) >>> >>> Platform 32K 64K 128K >>> -------------------------------------------- >>> Linux 4.9 7.5 3.8 >>> XP 5.8 6.6 5.2 >>> Win7 5.3 3.4 0.44 >>> >>> >>> Do anyone have experience with the intricacies of the various OSes in >>> the >>> midst of >>> Traffic policing? I was surprised to see such a variation in >>> performance, >>> especially since Windows 7 is supposed to more advanced than XP, >>> >>> I am going to comb through the packet captures, but wondered if anyone >>> had >>> insight. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Barry >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > // // Dipl.-Inform. Alexander Zimmermann // Department of Computer Science, Informatik 4 // RWTH Aachen University // Ahornstr. 55, 52056 Aachen, Germany // phone: (49-241) 80-21422, fax: (49-241) 80-22222 // email: zimmermann@cs.rwth-aachen.de // web: http://www.umic-mesh.net // --Apple-Mail=_ABF7926A-1900-4764-8923-19F36C6CD2BB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=PGP.sig Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature --Apple-Mail=_ABF7926A-1900-4764-8923-19F36C6CD2BB--