From: "Thomas Rosenstein" <thomas.rosenstein@creamfinance.com>
To: "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <brouer@redhat.com>
Cc: Bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] Router congestion, slow ping/ack times with kernel 5.4.60
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2020 14:33:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <29FB44CC-16FB-437A-BF53-53271C2C3AAD@creamfinance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F2A84998-D280-45E2-A38E-62C76D96676C@creamfinance.com>
On 7 Nov 2020, at 13:37, Thomas Rosenstein wrote:
>
> I have also tried to reproduce the issue with the kernel on a virtual
> hyper-v machine, there I don't have any adverse effects.
> But it's not 100% the same, since MASQ happens on it .. will
> restructure a bit to get a similar representation
>
I reproduced something similar now, for the VM it only happens at 120
threads but I have every 5 or so seconds one packet that's delayed
heavily:
PING 10.10.0.69 (10.10.0.69) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.273 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.260 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.621 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.218 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=52.7 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=0.261 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=7 ttl=63 time=0.381 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=8 ttl=63 time=0.230 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=9 ttl=63 time=0.378 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=10 ttl=63 time=0.268 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=11 ttl=63 time=0.313 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=12 ttl=63 time=0.395 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=13 ttl=63 time=0.269 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=14 ttl=63 time=44.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=15 ttl=63 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=16 ttl=63 time=0.406 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=17 ttl=63 time=0.245 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=18 ttl=63 time=0.202 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=19 ttl=63 time=0.229 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=20 ttl=63 time=0.357 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=21 ttl=63 time=0.462 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=22 ttl=63 time=0.300 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=23 ttl=63 time=60.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=24 ttl=63 time=0.200 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=25 ttl=63 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=26 ttl=63 time=0.296 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=27 ttl=63 time=0.273 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=28 ttl=63 time=0.591 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=29 ttl=63 time=0.583 ms
during that time the interface is loaded with 40 Mbits.
this does not appear with 3.10 kernel:
PING 10.10.0.69 (10.10.0.69) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.322 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.242 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.461 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.244 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.429 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=0.268 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=7 ttl=63 time=0.540 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=8 ttl=63 time=0.465 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=9 ttl=63 time=0.237 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=10 ttl=63 time=0.216 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=11 ttl=63 time=0.248 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=12 ttl=63 time=0.247 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=13 ttl=63 time=0.282 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=14 ttl=63 time=0.256 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=15 ttl=63 time=0.268 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=16 ttl=63 time=0.272 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=17 ttl=63 time=0.236 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=18 ttl=63 time=0.287 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=19 ttl=63 time=0.288 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=20 ttl=63 time=0.297 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=21 ttl=63 time=0.319 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=22 ttl=63 time=0.294 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=23 ttl=63 time=0.313 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=24 ttl=63 time=0.208 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=25 ttl=63 time=0.222 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=26 ttl=63 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=27 ttl=63 time=0.257 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=28 ttl=63 time=0.266 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=29 ttl=63 time=0.398 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=30 ttl=63 time=0.281 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=31 ttl=63 time=0.263 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.0.69: icmp_seq=32 ttl=63 time=0.276 ms
might be a hint that it's actually reproduceable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-07 13:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-04 15:23 Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-04 16:10 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-11-04 16:24 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-05 0:10 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-11-05 8:48 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-05 11:21 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-11-05 12:22 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-05 12:38 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-11-05 12:41 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-05 12:47 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-11-05 13:33 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-06 8:48 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-06 10:53 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-06 9:18 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-06 11:18 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-06 11:37 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-06 11:45 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-11-06 12:01 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-06 12:53 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-06 14:13 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-06 17:04 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-06 20:19 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-07 12:37 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-07 12:40 ` Jan Ceuleers
2020-11-07 12:43 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-07 13:00 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-09 8:24 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-09 10:09 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-09 11:40 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-09 11:51 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-11-09 12:25 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-09 14:33 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-12 10:05 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-12 11:26 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-12 13:31 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-12 13:42 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-12 15:42 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-13 6:31 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-16 11:56 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-16 12:05 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-09 16:39 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-07 13:33 ` Thomas Rosenstein [this message]
2020-11-07 16:46 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-07 17:01 ` Thomas Rosenstein
2020-11-07 17:26 ` Sebastian Moeller
2020-11-16 12:34 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-11-16 12:49 ` Thomas Rosenstein
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/bloat.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=29FB44CC-16FB-437A-BF53-53271C2C3AAD@creamfinance.com \
--to=thomas.rosenstein@creamfinance.com \
--cc=bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox