On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:24:56 +0000 Matt Corallo tor-lists@mattcorallo.com wrote:
Cool! What did your testing rig look like?
A few years ago I've got a dedicated server from one of these cheap French hosts, which appeared to have a congested uplink (low-ish upload speeds). Since the support was not able to solve this, but the server was very cheap to cancel just over that, I looked for ways to utilize it better even despite the congestion.
If I remember correctly, I also had a Japanese VPS at the time, so my tests were intentionally for a "difficult" case, uploading from France to Japan (with 250+ms ping).
Here are my completely unscientific scribbles of how all the various algorithms behaved. The scenario is uploading for a minute or so, observing the speed in MB/sec visually, then recording how it appeared to change during that minute (and then repeating this a couple of times to be certain).
tcp_bic.ko -- 6...5...4 tcp_highspeed.ko -- 2 tcp_htcp.ko -- 1.5...3...2 tcp_hybla.ko -- 3...2...1 tcp_illinois.ko -- 6...7...10 tcp_lp.ko -- 2...1 tcp_scalable.ko -- 5...4...3 tcp_vegas.ko -- 2.5 tcp_veno.ko -- 2.5 tcp_westwood.ko -- <1 tcp_yeah.ko -- 2...5...6
This was on the 3.14 kernel which did not have BBR yet to compare. In later comparisons, as mentioned before, it is on par or better than Illinois.
I suppose the real question is what does the latency/loss profile of the average Tor (bridge) user look like?
I think the real question is, is there any reason to *not* use BBR or that Illinois. So far I do not see a single one.