test(transport): assert maximum bandwidth on gbit link #2203
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This commit adds a basic smoke test using the `test-fixture` simulator, asserting the expected bandwidth on a 1 gbit link. Given mozilla#733, the current expected bandwidth is limited by the fixed sized stream receive buffer (1MiB).
mxinden
requested review from
KershawChang,
martinthomson and
larseggert
as code owners
mxinden
commented
Oct 26, 2024
| #[allow(clippy::cast_precision_loss)] | ||
| fn gbit_bandwidth() { | ||
| const MIB: usize = 1024 * 1024; | ||
| const TRANSFER_AMOUNT: usize = 100 * MIB; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Takes ~2s to run on my machine, 1s for up-, 1s for download. Using < 100 MIB doesn't give me consistent results.
Worth spending 2s of our unit-test runtime on this?
(Not to be confused with simulated time.)
| // | ||
| // Tracked in https://github.com/mozilla/neqo/issues/733. | ||
| let maximum_bandwidth = MIB as f64 * 8.0 / 0.1; // bandwidth-delay-product / delay = bandwidth | ||
| let expected_utilization = 0.5; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Running this test in a loop, Neqo is not able to utilize more than ~50% of the maximum bandwidth of 80 Mbit/s. Intuitively, even with packet loss, I would expect a congestion controller to be able to saturate more than 50% of a link.
45.95196838717057
49.31818797697269
45.826026606578566
49.53933723888579
45.997472274917506
49.31788343565587
45.58981370339061
49.31818797697269
40.48485804428038
49.451830153095756
40.5585726298109
49.31793477754305
40.55224164532084
54.71429614593755
45.57110592947965
49.45192167242847
40.53596208031323
54.79092558021697
45.95144831798395
I will look for mistakes in my math with a fresh mind tomorrow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this using Reno or Cubic? Pacing or not?
| pub const fn gbit_link() -> Self { | ||
| let rate = 1_000_000_000 / 8; | ||
| let delay = Duration::from_millis(50); | ||
| let capacity = rate / 20; // rate * 0.05 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Simply the bandwidth-delay-product. Happy for more realistic suggestions.
Failed Interop TestsQUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server neqo-latest as client
neqo-latest as server
All resultsSucceeded Interop TestsQUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server neqo-latest as client
neqo-latest as server
Unsupported Interop TestsQUIC Interop Runner, client vs. server neqo-latest as client
neqo-latest as server
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This commit adds a basic smoke test using the
test-fixturesimulator, asserting the expected bandwidth on a 1 gbit link.Given #733, the current expected bandwidth is limited by the fixed sized stream receive buffer (1MiB), not by the bandwidth of the link.
While a bit unconventional, I think it is worth having this smoke test, to make sure we don't regress. What do folks think?