Bufferbloat is the cause of much of the poor performance and human pain experienced using today’s Internet. It can be the cause of a form of congestion collapse of networks, though with slightly different symptoms than that of the 1986 NSFnet collapse. Since discussion of the best terminology for the problem reached no consensus , Jim Gettys invented a term that might best convey the sense of the problem.
Bufferbloat1 is the undesirable latency that comes from the existence of excessively large (bloated) buffers in systems, particularly network communication systems.
In a shared network, “bufferbloat” is a phenomenon whereby buffering of packets causes high latency and jitter, as well as reducing the overall network throughput.
With TCP/IP, during network congestion bufferbloat causes extra delays, limiting the speed of internet connections. Other network protocols are also affected, including UDP-based protocols, partly because they share buffers in the router with TCP/IP connections. This can cause problems by restricting the speed of connections, affecting interactive applications, gaming and VoIP. It has only become apparent in recent years, as more modern network equipment implements larger buffers as memory prices fall.
The problem is that the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm relies on packet drops to determine the bandwidth available. A TCP sender increases the rate at which it sends packets until packets start to drop, then decreases the rate. Ideally it speeds up and slows down until it finds an equilibrium equal to the speed of the link. However, for this to work well, the packet drops must occur in a timely manner, so that the sender can select a suitable rate. If a router on the path has a large buffer capacity, the packets can be queued for a long time waiting until the router can send them across a slow link to the ISP. No packets are dropped, so the TCP sender doesn’t receive information that it has exceeded the capacity of the bottleneck link. It doesn’t slow down until it has sent so much beyond the capacity of the link that the buffer fills and drops packets. At this point, the sender has far overestimated the speed of the link.
In a network router, packets are often queued before being transmitted. Packets are only dropped if the buffer is full. On older routers, buffers were fairly small so filled quickly and therefore packets began to drop shortly after the link became saturated, so the TCP/IP protocol could adjust. On newer routers buffers have become large enough to hold several megabytes of data, which can be equivalent to 10 sec. or more of data. This means that the TCP/IP protocol can’t adjust to the speed correctly, as it appears be able to send for 10 sec without receiving any feedback that packets are being dropped. This creates rapid speedups and slowdowns in transmissions.
The problem also affects other protocols. The router’s buffer can easily build up several seconds worth of data before packets start to drop. Those packets in the queue block (can be ahead of) interactive applications and cause problems for DNS, ARP, NTP, DHCP, gamers and VoIP. This is even the case with DiffServ, which has multiples buffers (queues). HTTP and VoIP may be buffered independently, but each buffer will still be independently susceptible to bufferbloat.
Systems suffering from bufferbloat will have bad latency under load under some or all circumstances, depending on if and where the bottleneck in the communication’s path exists. Bufferbloat encourages congestion of networks; bufferbloat destroys congestion avoidance in transport protocols such as HTTP, TCP, Bittorrent, etc. Network congestion avoidance algorithms depend upon timely packet drops or ECN; bloated buffers violate this design presumption. Without active queue management, these bloated buffers will fill, and stay full.
More subtlety, poor latency, besides being painful to users, can cause complete failure of applications and/or networks, and extremely aggravated people suffering with them.
Bufferbloat is seldom detected during the design and implementations of systems as engineers are methodical people, seldom if ever test latency under load systematically, and today’s memory is so cheap buffers are often added without thought of the consequences, where it can be hidden in many different parts of network systems.
You see manifestations of bufferbloat today in your operating systems, your home network, your broadband connections, possibly your ISP’s and corporate networks, at busy conference wireless networks, and on 3G networks. You can use the DSLReports Speed Test to measure bufferbloat directly.
Bufferbloat is a mistake we’ve all made together. What’s the solution? We have had extremely good results with the CoDel algorithm, and the related fq_codel which reduce bufferbloat by several orders of magnitude.
For the English language purists out there, formally, you are correct that “buffer bloat” or “buffer-bloat” would be more appropriate.[return]