W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

Re: setting bandwidth

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 10:10:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXtjmd3r69Or6kU9SuUtfLTZmWFKnhJ6BopPpd9gM3qpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: Kiran Kumar <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com>, public-webrtc@w3.org, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
This really isn't the place for lessons in congestion management on the
internet. Maybe you can start out by searching for "congestion collapse".
Get back to us when you can explain why TCP works like it does.
On Jul 28, 2013 5:06 PM, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  On 28/07/2013 3:30 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 27 July 2013 09:40, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>  I expect an immediate sharp video experience.
> I suspect that no matter what we do, you will be disappointed.  The
> thing is, what you describe is likely to generate congestion and there
> is no way that a browser platform should permit an application to do
> that.
>     I don't understand the congestion argument, so please help me
> understand.
>     What will happen if we start at 3MBit, versus slowly increasing
> bandwidth usage up to 3Mbit in the following cases?
>    1. The pipe is a synchronous 2MBit line
>    2. The pipe is a synchronous 4MBit line
>     For case #1, if the initial fence is minBandwidth = 3MBit, I expect
> the callback to get invoked right away and it either aborting the
> application or reducing the video resolution and minimum bandwidth. In the
> case of a gradual ramp-up, I expect the same end-result (callback getting
> invoked) but it will take longer to occur and will take place at the 2MBit
> mark.
>     For case #2, I expect both scenarios (immediate vs ramp-up) to be
> identical.
>     Did I miss anything?
> Thanks,
> Gili
Received on Sunday, 28 July 2013 17:11:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:50 UTC