[ENet-discuss] A unified rate-based throttle for reliable and
lsalzman at telerama.com
Sun Apr 4 10:57:55 PDT 2004
I am underwhelmed by the amount of comment on this. Thanks to Bruce for
being the first, though. :) Jim? Anybody else? Come on! I know people
have opinions on this...
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 06:42:11PM -0500, Lee Salzman wrote:
> I've been giving some thought to trying to make the throttling
> mechanisms more holistic, and particularly more sane for the case of
> reliable data. Currently the windowing mechanism and the packet dropping
> mechanism sort-of work together, but in an almost antagonistic way.
> So I propose the following throttling mechanism in place of what's
> there, that would both get rid of the reliable packet window and replace
> the two throttling mechanisms with one integrated scheme:
> The main variable of the throttle will be the current sending rate. This
> is the rate, in bytes per second, which at most data should be sent over
> a connection. The rate ultimately floats up and down in response to
> network conditions. Regardless of throttling reliable or unreliable data,
> this sending rate is always obeyed.
> If bandwidth limits for the connection are specified, we then have at
> our disposal a maximum throughput that ENet should not exceed. Since
> this is only optionally specified, it may not be counted upon but can be
> taken advantage of to set an upper limit on the current sending rate.
> Whenever we need to send out data (on a call to either enet_host_flush or
> enet_host_service), we determine a data budget. This data budget is
> defined as time since data was last sent multiplied by the current
> sending rate, and caps to be at most the amount of data sendable in one
> second (or some fraction thereof), so:
> budget = min(timeSinceLastSent, 1) * sendingRate.
> For reliable packets, we send out as many packets as possible within
> this budget. Any remaining data is simply stalled there until the budget
> is large enough to send.
> For unreliable packets, minimal latency of sending is much more
> important than whether the packets get there, since ENet assumes that a
> high sending rate. So as to accomplish this, ALL backlogged unreliable
> packets are sent out subject to packet dropping. To compute the
> probability that a packet should be dropped, we consider the TOTAL
> amount of backlogged data (both reliable and unreliable) in excess of
> the data budget. The probability of dropping a byte in a packet is then:
> dropProbability = max(backloggedData - dataBudget, 0)
> / backloggedData
> The probability of dropping an individual packet is its size in bytes
> multiplied by this probability.
> The criteria for floating the sending rate up are the same as currently,
> that being "good" RTTs. The criteria for dropping it down are "bad"
> RTTs or dropped packets.
> So, do you guys think this is good, or would it not work? Gimme
More information about the ENet-discuss