2014
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-13488-8_17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of ARED, CoDel and PIE

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…PIE has already been shown to need an updated parameterisation for specific scenarios (such as data-centers [10] or cable modems [11]). CoDel has been shown to not always control the queuing delay with a limited impact on the bottleneck utilization [8], [9], and it was uncertain whether CoDel could be tuned for objectives and network conditions other than the ones for which it has been designed: this led to our interest in examining CoDel and not PIE. We also wanted to evaluate the performance of a hybrid scheduling/AQM scheme, which is possible with FQCoDel, whereas there is no reference algorithm for FQ-PIE.…”
Section: Delay-based Aqm Schemesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…PIE has already been shown to need an updated parameterisation for specific scenarios (such as data-centers [10] or cable modems [11]). CoDel has been shown to not always control the queuing delay with a limited impact on the bottleneck utilization [8], [9], and it was uncertain whether CoDel could be tuned for objectives and network conditions other than the ones for which it has been designed: this led to our interest in examining CoDel and not PIE. We also wanted to evaluate the performance of a hybrid scheduling/AQM scheme, which is possible with FQCoDel, whereas there is no reference algorithm for FQ-PIE.…”
Section: Delay-based Aqm Schemesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The claim that CoDel can self-tune its dropping policy suggests that no knobs needs to be tuned. However its behaviour has been shown to depend on the congestion level [8] and the RTT of the path [9]. The benefits of introducing AQM mechanisms in capacity-limited and large RTT networks are not yet well understood.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the expensive requirements of CoDel for implementation and operation, a lightweight algorithm, PIE (Proportional Integral Controller Enhanced), has also been proposed, which benefits from the advantages of both RED and CoDel: it is easy to be implemented like RED, while it directly controls latency like CoDel [40]. Evaluation of CoDel, PIE, and ARED for various static and dynamic scenarios in [23,45] shows that PIE achieves significantly lower delays than the other two in static scenarios, while CoDel and ARED recover significantly faster than PIE from traffic changes. Experimental evaluations using real-world implementations in a wired testbed in [28] show that ARED performs worse than CoDel and PIE only when the number of traffic flows on the bottleneck link is very small.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PIE can ensure low latency and achieve high link utilization under various congestion conditions. Schwardmann et al evaluated by simulation the robustness of CoDel, PIE, and ARED for various static and dynamic scenarios [23] in a simple set-up with one link and a variable number of bulk TCP flows. ARED (Adaptive RED) is an active queue management scheme that attempts to stabilize the average queue size around some preset target queue size [24].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%