You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I believe CoDel is straight-forward to implement as proposed.
AIMD requires the ability to observe whether a particular iteration failed, or rather, was retried. That might require a callback (e.g., the “mapback” for map) to hold a facet of the governor that reports that an error was observed and to cut the “congestion window” (concurrency limit) in half or some other multiplier/divisor.
These would be interesting and compelling use cases to illustrate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It’s also worth looking at the duality of “token bucket” and “leaky bucket”. Some control algorithms are considerably more precise when you flip the numerator and denominator (tokens / time vs time / tokens), where the control system proposes a time to wait before calling next(). It’s likely that there’s an illustrative example in there somewhere, with a governor that adapts such a signal to timed delays.
Please consider exercising some well-known control algorithms. I offer a couple and invite others.
I believe CoDel is straight-forward to implement as proposed.
AIMD requires the ability to observe whether a particular iteration failed, or rather, was retried. That might require a callback (e.g., the “mapback” for
map
) to hold a facet of the governor that reports that an error was observed and to cut the “congestion window” (concurrency limit) in half or some other multiplier/divisor.These would be interesting and compelling use cases to illustrate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: