From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.candelatech.com (mail2.candelatech.com [208.74.158.173]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9E421F2F1 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.147] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.candelatech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 916CE40C4A7; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53F65D30.5050802@candelatech.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:57:20 -0700 From: Isaac Konikoff User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Morton , Dave Taht References: <20140804124453.GA19478@ens-lyon.fr> <96292B6B-F49D-4A8A-BD23-DD75399D8DA9@ifi.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Remy: Computer-Generated Congestion Control 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: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:57:26 -0000 We regularly test out our WiFi Traffic Generator against a slew of commercially available APs: Netgear, Cisco, Asus, Dlink...etc.. For 802.11a/b/g/n we have a 1200 station emulator: http://candelatech.com/ct525-1200-6n_product.php For 802.11ac we have a 384 station emulator: http://candelatech.com/ct525-384-6ac_product.php And we have various combinations of the above: http://candelatech.com/lf_systems.php#wifire Here are some sample capacity reports against a few different APs: http://candelatech.com/downloads/wifi-capacity-reports-08152014.tar.gz Isaac On 08/21/2014 10:33 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote: > I don't suppose anyone has set up a lab containing several hundred > wireless clients and a number of APs? A stepping stone towards that > would be a railway carriage simulator, with one AP, a simulated 3G > uplink, and a couple of dozen clients. > > I wonder how well simply putting fq on each of the clients and fq_codel > on the APs would work. My general impression is that fq is the right > default choice for end hosts (which are generally not at the bottleneck) > and fq_codel is the right default choice for bottleneck routers. A > typical consumer router/AP might see the bottleneck for both directions, > though not necessarily at the same time. > > - Jonathan Morton > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > -- Isaac Konikoff Candela Technologies konikofi@candelatech.com Office: +1 360 380 1618 Cell: +1 360 389 2453 Fax: +1 360 380 1431