+\subsection faq_surf_network_latency I get weird timings when I play with the latencies.
+
+OK, first of all, remember that units should be Bytes, Flops and
+Seconds. If you don't use such units, some SimGrid constants (e.g. the
+SG_TCP_CTE_GAMMA constant used in most network models) won't have the
+right unit and you'll end up with weird results.
+
+Here is what happens with a single transfer of size L on a link
+(bw,lat) when nothing else happens.
+
+\verbatim
+0-----lat--------------------------------------------------t
+|-----|**** real_bw =min(bw,SG_TCP_CTE_GAMMA/(2*lat)) *****|
+\endverbatim
+
+In more complex situations, this min is the solution of a complex
+max-min linear system. Have a look
+<a href="http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/simgrid-devel/2006-April/thread.html">here</a>
+and read the two threads "Bug in SURF?" and "Surf bug not
+fixed?". You'll have a few other examples of such computations. You
+can also read "A Network Model for Simulation of Grid Application" by
+Henri Casanova and Loris Marchal to have all the details. The fact
+that the real_bw is smaller than bw is easy to understand. The fact
+that real_bw is smaller than SG_TCP_CTE_GAMMA/(2*lat) is due to the
+window-based congestion mechanism of TCP. With TCP, you can't exploit
+your huge network capacity if you don't have a good round-trip-time
+because of the acks...
+
+Anyway, what you get is t=lat + L/min(bw,SG_TCP_CTE_GAMMA/(2*lat)).
+
+ * if I you set (bw,lat)=(100 000 000, 0.00001), you get t = 1.00001 (you fully
+use your link)
+ * if I you set (bw,lat)=(100 000 000, 0.0001), you get t = 1.0001 (you're on the
+limit)
+ * if I you set (bw,lat)=(100 000 000, 0.001), you get t = 10.001 (ouch!)
+
+This bound on the effective bandwidth of a flow is not the only thing
+that may make your result be unexpected. For example, two flows
+competing on a saturated link receive an amount of bandwidth inversely
+proportional to their round trip time.
+
+\subsection faq_bugrepport So I've found a bug in SimGrid. How to report it?