From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6BA3B2A4 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 02:56:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58BC61D24; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 07:56:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-200-28.brq.redhat.com [10.40.200.28]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v227u12P006377; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 02:56:02 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:55:59 +0100 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer To: Sebastian Moeller Cc: Y , bloat , brouer@redhat.com Message-ID: <20170302085559.76c6773e@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3B94F03E-72E8-4595-A0C9-6EBF848FDAA9@gmx.de> References: <1488393458.14392.3.camel@yahoo.fr> <3B94F03E-72E8-4595-A0C9-6EBF848FDAA9@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Thu, 02 Mar 2017 07:56:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [Bloat] Stab overhead caliculation and mpu for ingress shaping. 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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 07:56:04 -0000 On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:36:25 +0100 Sebastian Moeller wrote: > I typically would try to run > https://github.com/moeller0/ATM_overhead_detector to empirically > figure out the per packet overhead (but I note that this has never > been tested with PPPoA data as far as I can remember) Cool project, you have an ATM_overhead_detector :-) Something I always missed, and I never got around to create such a tool. Thanks for doing this :-) (I don't have time atm to play with it, but it looks cool) -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer