<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Lower Bound on Latency Spikes for Capacity-Seeking Network Traffic · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2111.00488/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2111.00488/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Lower Bound on Latency Spikes for Capacity-Seeking Network Traffic — mentioned by ajb</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40922207</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2111.00488:40922207</guid><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2024 23:06:17 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;L4S (or at least, the dualq implementation) uses a shallow buffer. You can&amp;#x27;t get 1000ms of latency if your buffer is only 15ms. Although the title claims there&amp;#x27;s no way round latency spikes, their paper [1] explores the case where latency spikes are traded off against allowing packet loss, which is what you&amp;#x27;re going to get if you fill a shallow buffer. For real-time traffic, packet dropping is usually preferable. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.00488&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2111.00488/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.NI</category></item></channel></rss>
