From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A223201A83 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr (hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr [134.157.168.1]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.14.4/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id p4UM5qbH045059 ; Tue, 31 May 2011 00:06:05 +0200 (CEST) X-Ids: 168 Received: from lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr (lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr [134.157.168.57]) by hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A44CAC3380; Tue, 31 May 2011 00:05:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jch by lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QRAat-00033A-EZ; Tue, 31 May 2011 00:05:51 +0200 From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Otto Solares Cabrera References: <7i62ouk2s1.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <20110528205954.GA14958@guug.org> <7ilixpbk55.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <20110530005244.GB14958@guug.org> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 00:05:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20110530005244.GB14958@guug.org> (Otto Solares Cabrera's message of "Sun, 29 May 2011 18:52:44 -0600") Message-ID: <7id3izg7y8.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 4DE414C0.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4DE414C0.001/134.157.168.1/hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr/hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr/ Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] SFB tuning 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, 30 May 2011 21:50:27 -0000 Thanks a lot for the data. >> (Are you seeing any queuedrop?) Okay, both queuedrop and penaltydrop are 0 on all interfaces, which means that you don't overflow any buffers and that the penalty box is not being used -- tweaking limit and the penalty rate will have no effect. I don't understand what you're doing on eth6, which has both prio and htb. You're systematically putting sfq below sfb. You should be aware that since sfb keeps the queues short, the effect of sfq is reduced somewhat -- you may not be getting all the fairness you're expecting. Your packet loss rates are eth4 (Internet): 0.6% eth2 (LAN): 0.2% eth6 (Wifi): 3.6% Only eth6 is congested. Three quarters of the eth6 drops are in sfb 52:. There's 3.6 times more earlydrop than bucketdrop, which seems okay to me. Increasing increment/decrement might reduce the bucketdrop somewhat; so would increasing the target, at the cost of increasing the amount of queueing. Thanks again for the data, -- Juliusz P.S. Wow ! Guatemala !