From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-01-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-240-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.240]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916A92E0050 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-02-ewr.mailhop.org (scan-02-ewr.local [10.0.141.224]) by mail-01-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F081F4797 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:27:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 () X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 69.41.199.58 Received: from alpha.coverfire.com (alpha.coverfire.com [69.41.199.58]) by mail-01-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BF31F45B3 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:27:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.88.98] (routed-2 [69.41.195.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by alpha.coverfire.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1LNR4dZ014594 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:27:08 -0500 From: Dan Siemon To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-lhrnSXBz+GhbcZGo4nKP" Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:27:04 -0500 Message-ID: <1298330824.4443.17.camel@ganymede.coverfire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 (2.32.1-1.fc14) X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DATE_IN_FUTURE_48_96 autolearn=no version=3.3.2-r929478 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2-r929478 (2010-03-31) on alpha.coverfire.com Subject: [Bloat] Network latency experiments X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:27:14 -0000 --=-lhrnSXBz+GhbcZGo4nKP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I spent some time over the weekend playing around with different network configurations and collecting latency results. Hopefully this is interesting to the people on this list. http://www.coverfire.com/archives/2011/02/21/network-latency-experiments/ Experiments 1) Linux defaults 2) Reduce buffers 3) Reduce buffers + SFB 4) Reduce buffers + SFQ Each was tested under upstream load, downstream load and bidirectional load. --=-lhrnSXBz+GhbcZGo4nKP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABCAAGBQJNYvTIAAoJEJKXGLoTP2w+SHYP/2wQIKs9rGQq8g+UzBB/otw+ un4m7yoIfS14rzS6YNyfl8x67cYEfese8j6f0Y3Ai88DnDQ+w5HxfzZJZPsxOjzY E1F+snPEKgg9Jxf2d2kf11iopC+guhm+4cTeC9SUECfRn93ttZ0O7+NZ+WRzY/gT MpFVRHBb8bplvtKp2deevdgnBJQH+el16deb/QlNYBt2J6Qk3dvefJ4/DtHONlLL BdxM0jhf+hi4iN4W6VRbYpuEed7W+LobiUtUA4XVXa9us2ujbklhrs5PEi0uVTR3 l8PBrI7rj8SDsBcQ1m6F4CrJRy6joSjm3sCqroxsqjdKoOcN7dwa64z9SZjapNS0 XpzPRfUPFrSdgR0oGcnOPOLHRj3T14pFa9RrZ1tkEgWxnHtwefxZNcuRG0v1Gc5K q62gru6y7UJlVHnNeqylAP45c8e4fMIpkmlv8btVy0MTCrelwWPbhZg7fu5zHWo/ 3WXdCcC032bC+oIOO7lbXVfixKQ2owAc2fcqfklynvexOpYxey/jjymBeEocERPb 4QLCT+Y3o0ulDR+4qBVfiZVN+JLeoJMLFDOglvVdGZ7XIhu4NgJO5gzkccLT6Tj8 Dlza8vAwXwOQXBikuT1mxLS0ykI+qDr4dSeS1eHJXekh3ynE2i79lBc9v40o5wMU nRfM+61GJS7MHoVTUVLP =5u+d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-lhrnSXBz+GhbcZGo4nKP--