[Iccrg] Re: [e2e] Reasons not to deply TCP BIC/Cubic

[sannikov]

Hello. 

I'm not so familiar with CUBIC, but it is really aggressive.
And as far as I know Linux implementation is little bit differ from the
original.
Did have original version same problems?

--
With best regards, Alexander Sannikov.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:08:05 +0100, Saverio Mascolo
<saverio.mascolo at gmail.com> wrote:
> yes!
> 
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Michael Welzl  wrote:
>  This should really go to ICCRG, I'd say (added to recipients). May I
ask
> to continue this (interesting!) discussion there?
> 
>  On 11/30/11 12:10 PM, mascolo at poliba.it [2] wrote:
>   Dear all,
> 
>  we know that TCP BIC/Cubic is default in Linux and as a consequence 50%
> of servers employs TCP BIC/Cubic.
> 
>  Our measurements say that there could be reasons not to deploy TCP
> BIC/Cubic. These reasons  are in our opinion rooted in its more
> aggressive probing phase. In particular, in common network conditions,
> TCP BIC/CUBIC exhibits: 1. a larger RTT average wrt to TCP NewReno or
TCP
> Westwood+; 2. a larger number of retransmission wrt to TCP NewReno or
TCP
> Westwood+; 3 larger throughput but same goodput wrt to TCP NewReno or
> Westwood+.
> 
>  In other terms, it seems that its more aggressive probing increases
both
> throughput and retransmissions but leaving unchanged the goodput. This
is
>  neutral for the users but negative for the network.
> 
>  I appreciate your views.
> 
>  Thanks for the attention and best regards,
> 
>  Saverio Mascolo
> 
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------
>  This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> 
>  _______________________________________________
>  Iccrg mailing list
>  Iccrg at cs.ucl.ac.uk [3]
>  http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/iccrg [4]