From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 7BB0F3CB35 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:10:06 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1624997401; bh=Vc8qnOdC1sNnwlbw3Pap8xWTmo9oDJb+hO6kqeaLRNk=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=O/WqlaHkUCyBQZoby6ohy91nfgww2njGFvGTqXM/BmOIbBm44UU4wY6Bb9/Rcxim6 yEGgFc8kjDDX9tl7vpCBALU/f1xIwL3CkrrwgXEdxaar7HbgpuFJAKHmlzn7X55JbO XCp3FhRyOyM0zGS5Fdd8rJFYIkH0AKwQpCCJjlTE= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.42.229] ([77.6.182.209]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M4JmN-1ly34b3GzJ-000JFM; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 22:10:00 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <20210629124831.6de2c1b9@hermes.local> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 22:09:59 +0200 Cc: "Livingood, Jason" , "bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2B2C492B-041E-46B2-A4CA-F2B47E77EEFB@gmx.de> References: <20210621210048.628befdb@hermes.local> <20210629124831.6de2c1b9@hermes.local> To: Stephen Hemminger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:6BUOvf5YUJolCywDcvi0XUzMfvx9NAGYc+d6Sr8W7xhuB9rBoqO aBTS0Mm0PrLay9o0PvwMH8cdaPWHvmsfMPoykuXj1BrgEOk/R75TMc6HRCJ2zUSABTpVlhY Q8iMgcNA0x0vKybijLYguqbyMDBPX68mqSSqJW+03EB14gBIMnOqGR3li/TbMwkzmX/ne1q PyHoS2lr/y44+RhLlfsWg== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Hxj49RG+/V8=:dQ0kpukn49fh1y/K3Larg+ onH7VHc7K4FiOiGe9OhAGZ6nXHu9IsqjRUGrGgpq14APBm+QosBNJwNvFXdvoie+ml5esbtJO rLiVh5BSC/QaN9GkVQAjOqk1QsCxMHNHUXRzraHXlkwatMoUR1Q5wY1yvHzXhLpSeTqE3jMCT gKQ1Vi4FwZh++D5JA5N+kcsqIDUZcQWZ4xLXqkaMMrxLzw+3ggEUTbHn/iJT6TLqIcyfNtus9 h6L8cRPQH2QkzQqN2c8ZFGvnDwXthIRIve7V7KQSlltwHP7tTJOL1OqzIlpZtdTL46Co5V4DG OOc2RoQNeZ/OiCfn7sm2sIyxw0Dx/UNH4lKg80ksB3r2/mLb+NtxSCXuUD8drZD8nVLY7vlvK wNfiOL6Df4KCSpbiRNX6iwcqPrV+u7sCWFaGHneJquCHLoivdPIKMr9KlwHBFbQ419HgoD33D BVEwmNeIM5tn2/StBfveDz5Ii3kvfpw9ZbiNP6MbF9IpJQDqHqg7HItmMEnafZCCZAGDXccIG QjLlGbZQohtwFeuunZvwWNH8jSqBghTVo0dgQmQLtbUKBPjxz0dRg38UgHjiEWFKug09Pe+tk FwJ+ZLhtJsARBk0ijMjTgdGwMQTPzrLwXRukIlZA4iHmFH+T8C96lMO10MgHLowy1coLdKROC zQfzsNjDvju4VdLInZP+hnt7ftDYBu3YhpXtZ3+7S04gDDQHfvJcO3DfKXgNnpD9/nwM2Rtuz Knv+DH3QFaaZWZGn/utlEUYvlE4aTBCyNqeGlrBU+imZy8h66JYrIJXwUkElN1xWbkLvrsC3X f1XVN8YqaZNGVKaDV4llZr1U+Kb9umm7b5ESf8r8cpF1gIZAJ+MMXQexR2qLBM+qtBSUm+Ojx 04ev/YJ2uGy7oG5HBxMLJarUIBJUWrYDUycDrsE9WdRhurmvyPSpEaba7+EagzJjw8PyNul0o GGXFxGmCMog5ZCA5PULmavnZHfFnQoe5SHBnYOQUAK/lmauonZ2qWcgh6Pv/16cx/UKVMKg2w eDTZA5gFJnZJKBV3gVTt2v7I5Z5m3mGUKSASOxie44MSaxQ/xycPKKSye7ydLgwy1Db3k1/OS ktx5Jq3gsH5sdYwpOAWb+B61/M5AFfDSu+J Subject: Re: [Bloat] Really getting 1G out of ISP? 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: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:10:06 -0000 Hi Stephen, > On Jun 29, 2021, at 21:48, Stephen Hemminger = wrote: >=20 > On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:51:18 +0000 > "Livingood, Jason" wrote: >=20 >>> It doesn't help that all the local ISP's claim 10Mbit upload even = with 1G download. Is this a head end provisioning problem or related to = Docsis 3.0 (or later) modems? =20 >>=20 >> I'll cover this in an upcoming technical paper (mid-July I hope). = Depending on the DOCSIS version, CMTS, and cable modems involved you may = have no AQM, or buffer controls for the cable modem, or AQM (sort of) on = the CMTS and in the cable modem. In the Comcast network you should find = AQM in the upstream queue on the cable modems for which we have deployed = RDK-B software (XB6 and XB7), while other devices would have buffer = controls. >>=20 >> JL >>=20 >=20 > Just a short update. The cable modem matters. Updated from Docsis 3.0 = modem with bad Intel Puma chipset > to new model with Docsis 3.1 and Broadcom and things are much more = stable. Glad that helped, rather sad state of affairs that these devices = are still in the field. (I am not fan of forced obsolescence or retiring = hardware too early, but these devices are simply barely fit for their = purpose). >=20 > As far as AQM, in this setup; fq_codel does much better than the Cake = configuration. With fq_codel can > see 700Mbit download speed. It looks like Cake is using more CPU Yepp, it turns out that all the additional features cake brings = to the table have some computational cost. At some earlier state in = development cake was leaner and meaner than HTB+fq_codel, but that did = not seem to hold. > especialy since the Cake configuration > is using an ifb ingress queue discipline as well. Both cake and HTB+fq_codel require tricks for download shaping, = either a veth pair or an IFB (both seem to have a similar cost but IFB = is much simpler to set up) or for a wired only shaper, one can = instantiate the internet-download shaper as egress shaper on the = interface towards the LAN. Last I tested on an ancient single core 750 = MHz MIPS, avoiding the IFB got a 5% higher shaper limit, so not nothing, = but also not a way to have your router punch one weight class higher? Best Regards Sebastian > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat