From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA3DB3CB35 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:42:55 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1611348171; bh=8/N3P7hbJh5HyF7Wdc1ongPSNFFkPyfBisAiE6o45EM=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=IBIfkSDYrQy16/pbE23XzgmXp3iOkXzhPtPEN1NJRyRh/i+Y2KBczzYH+gBBWxFE7 3bVncrBdQrxl0RRU9G/XLSnyUpH//Pt4PaT6oL845PSmLPgVdcM7HFeISdJ5fBS+PL 01RE0e2dOPD2Q0xf9XJODLq9B6nriA3zPeKji9d8= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.42.229] ([95.116.24.251]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MfpOT-1leHpa0CtN-00gGWx; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 21:42:51 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <932357EB-614C-4F74-925C-A1D6FB5F3AD2@apple.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 21:42:50 +0100 Cc: bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0631EAAE-AF0A-4A32-BE06-6A988B19B0A8@gmx.de> References: <932357EB-614C-4F74-925C-A1D6FB5F3AD2@apple.com> To: Stuart Cheshire X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:TnKc+dkyi4xj7is62HooCD/fxZ10k2yc1ZGhfXqWc7sinIVN3aN zu/PJ9fL0D3Wj7Q0RpmbhTv/lkSIBv9AoeHOzuHpsrRp7x+kDUZVfi1zwjKm0kMw7f1pRfp y4eUrGDqzoPuvobG1KpB5kKEvJSwxabIK+WlGCm0t0UAsug2XitcV7zV5Sxq6CSaQ+5SKXb lSCSGlokKunOB2qi9Akfg== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:HKW+E0V8Wv8=:O7VY9wklLrki3K3yL+0bJr mkBVo81+A3p+OWb4WZhXfRh+Oxk5xJkqAtfMk7o6afv6kjROyM+HGZKY/DacIWev1FL4joh+L MJBIO8ngqD0kIq5rLPHOJ4RoLZYoT7DJDVGjRf4x4XoRiwErkMIcHUq1etbSsyp/l1yn7VS6D fhb/SYlICABguW4L7TDh+9PkFSU7a7lqaJ0WGwhfGgxBMXLtRB42nlMPFdFojHyBQwkZWzbXe cPsqoJ6eB167s8LGGp5XS4ZwTEy7zL/Qp3TNW0nwOJD3q5ESukck5iAM6nOpPQxyPtOCrzMWk eY8g30mAZV1VKVImb6uR7YKVSbsDQJdVcpWviHAmvkmkqszZuX66eYM3z+rS+fuiNCaHs+gv2 Q7Im/7krF1o5bURODrJphkqcMBl+Z6lyWsuZQw0DOUQhaGUsVVf404qQvrBn6csTIclo7bPhR KCR82bGmGHU8hUtZ7Qmu5Vvg9M4c5h6gyV4GSMqVRabtusTGJoNwe9jUJNNMJJnLKelP2cZ8w FmGU5Uc7h0+fS8RP6y57bbomy907728Zuxypp3wJ2i/SURDJKQO2timSMz65nuk45jo1lhSEy xlHvbbk53FwFW6l4hc2HRFC8yuC8FZ2JuH4gMYdR+kGPAjmRsL3c3b0fntyyhwOAtRD0nYrHM OFxudKVl+uRcGc6KB60dv7R3qob2vYFSZlVMz7R39W6smUwqYgSGEvdjw2p6wJesIW3ntGNa3 FIp0ic6XuMsgLe90WyYPqpFsmKuhvf49EaGdZGiJZztl1qEk5zC95typDf8KVyRcHl5FQWMk6 HU65pqFs/D5218RWwSxw1reG8FDkID8tCbYBPDaUJHw9m7+CBqIFOTSIkHfdJQg6tdnoHhPyU /4ZEZzuyyRDbl7q5EPFg== Subject: Re: [Bloat] UniFi Dream Machine Pro X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 20:42:56 -0000 Maybe I can help out here. I believe you are talking about two different issues here. Dave notes = that "traffic shaping" performance seems to top out at ~800 Mbps and you = interpret that to mean CoDel being the rate limiting step here. The = number seems a bit low though, I have seen unidirectional traffic = shaping up to ~940 Mbps on a 1.6 GHz dual core arm a9 Marvell Armada = 380/385 SoC (under bidirectional stress however it topped out at = ~500/500 Mbps with cake as shaper). Raspberry pi 4Bs are reported (on = the openwrt forum) to allow bidirectional traffic shaping at > 900Mbps. I am confident that this device will happily run CoDel and even = fq_codel close to line-rate, as codel/fq_codel have a relative modest = processing cost. Traffic shaping however, at least as implemented in = Linux' TBF, HTB, HFSC, and cake qdiscs is a different beast and quite = CPU intensive. That might actually top out at ~800 Mbps on that device. = (In my understanding the issue with shaping is more of a latency than = throughput issue, if the traffic shaper is not to push large bursts of = data into the next layer, it basically wants to yield CPU only until = shortly before the lower level drivers run dry to then only admit a = small batch of packets, and at increasingly faster links the = serialization time of an individual packet becomes shorter and shorter = increasing the CPU "neediness" of traffic shapers). =20 I also guess that the Ubiquity numbers assume the use of some = offload engines that might or might not be supported by main line linux, = but that is not backed by factual knowledge. Hope that helps Sebastian > On Jan 22, 2021, at 20:42, Stuart Cheshire via Bloat = wrote: >=20 > On 20 Jan 2021, at 07:55, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 >> This review, highly recommending this router on the high end >>=20 >> https://www.increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk/best-router-2020 >>=20 >> also states that the sqm implementation has been dumbed down = significantly and can only shape 800Mbit inbound. Long ago we did a = backport of cake to the other ubnt routers mentioned in the review, has = anyone tackled this one? >=20 > According to the UniFi Dream Machine Pro data sheet, it has a 1.7 GHz = quad-core ARM Cortex-A57 processor and achieves the following throughput = numbers (downlink direction): >=20 > 8.0 Gb/s with Deep Packet Inspection > 3.5 Gb/s with DPI + Intrusion Detection > 0.8 Gb/s with IPsec VPN >=20 > >=20 > Is implementing CoDel queueing really 10x more burden than running = =E2=80=9CUbiquiti=E2=80=99s proprietary Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) = engine=E2=80=9D? Is CoDel 4x more burden than Ubiquiti=E2=80=99s IDS = (Intrusion Detection System) and IPS (Intrusion Prevention System)? >=20 > Is CoDel really the same per-packet cost as doing full IPsec VPN = decryption on every packet? I realize the IPsec VPN decryption probably = has some assist from crypto-specific ARM instructions or hardware, but = even so, crypto operations are generally considered relatively = expensive. If this device can do 800 Mb/s throughput doing IPsec VPN = decryption for every packet, it feels like it ought to be able to do a = lot better than that just doing CoDel queueing calculations for every = packet. >=20 > Is this just a software polish issue, that could be remedied by doing = some performance optimization on the CoDel code? >=20 > It=E2=80=99s also possible that the information in the review might = simply be wrong -- it=E2=80=99s hard to measure throughput numbers in = excess of 1 Gb/s unless you have both a client and a server connected = faster than that in order to run the test. In other words, gigabit = Ethernet is out, so both client and server would have to be connected = via the 10 Gb/s SFP+ ports (of which the UDM-PRO has just two -- one in = the upstream direction, and one in the downstream direction). Speaking = for myself personally, I don=E2=80=99t have any devices with 10 Gb/s = capability, and my Internet connection isn=E2=80=99t above 1 Gb/s = either, so as long as it can get reasonably close to 1 Gb/s that=E2=80=99s= more than I need (or could use) right now. >=20 > Stuart Cheshire >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat