3 ms·
I can definitely see its use over longish connections, and I can definitely see disabling the patch on a local network these shouldn't be issues (because you ha
by jnordwick 10y ago
I can definitely see its use over longish connections, and I can definitely see disabling the patch on a local network these shouldn't be issues (because you have control of the program endpoints).
I wonder how it works for things like delivering gaming or real-time-ish feeds where dumping packets might not be such a bad thing (as in they can be written to handle data).
Looks interesting though and definitely better for throughput over random networks.
- an_account 10y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but doesn't bufferbloat kill latency, which hurts gaming/real time more than normal web browsing? So wouldn't this be a major improvement for those type of applications?
- Filligree 10y agoIt does, and the usual solution is to not load your link heavily while gaming. If it's someone else's link that's loaded, then you're screwed. However, most games are deeply inflexible on how much bandwidth they use, and additionally tend to use UDP. Running out of bandwidth doesn't degrade the game; it makes them break entirely. As a result of both of these, with a few exceptions, this work won't be directly useful to games.
- apenwarr 10y agoNot directly. But if more people use bbr for their TCP sessions, there will be less latency caused by sessions alongside the gaming session.
- jnordwick 10y agoNot always. It depends on how you are processing incoming packets and if you can do it bulk or elide some processing when you have more to work with.