From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 782853B2A4; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 07:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id n142so2097128qkn.2; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 04:34:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9Whf13xL/1tx6cvaq+R9NVi1+Sg6fj04YTv3L/1K2MY=; b=FW7YyyfZBqX1tyJbuR+t6/q0R6j6nz6Vjd8/wxZ/UEipvR58Qe8FjkOapCEEJ1B5Vz wc+lCpUL4sH8mQHYoOrNipCGdFZoW92pXOC1R7tmwtXL8E3wDLJUTf8ylmZn5V6b/IGx MFoyz2YFEDjB0/6FVB26/IhfMng2ZZiF7lDWL9shg5JWqP3x4BOd1aThdPU2hW1JJBmF ghQJWfJf6+pNmvD2gscf3Oam90n/pGpA9T/5Cew2H7IGbHRoLrr5zkkngFi70629XNSv zSEx0bx6lig5SPRSDZZAc8kiWNzNhcGN6kc/L5bKEyfnz7ceWdFuVrR9SGQ6fxc5DKmv dZTw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9Whf13xL/1tx6cvaq+R9NVi1+Sg6fj04YTv3L/1K2MY=; b=T7aO9VftSbgCrtG1rspN7XnkJuvmVRHFB8FyJf0Saa1BGt65roCHTISACymzNS5PZx OMN8TDVb9l4mDBpMRwBxMIx6VzYBw4jJ5pxVsQrrC8Tc9mJAz3uQfvgRW2dfe781MbpP zBR7zAzg5SpdZ+m+QCpfQEHjgq3ACT03aSF3ow8y1NfPAmAha++Zf1n2j1uFV/SNm8NO AuWQGvJ28tvjLJG4d+1bd0A4yQ7FaKoJjXrv6sDkFxj+wFbOJz2CIg1WBGRc1jHipdJZ ekf2uoyzKlHFNXNE1SI7lYR4dX9+vMqeRyz5Mp/HW/sCVPPdMMZ0jS5p9Sk5MN0OIaCj eFvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53384naFd8q7XaibhLp7vswssRQqjTShCf0FzYFGdineF3wcCLgJ k8EfLSla6IK64euFFo4CIwc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzImlNAIyhNX5rO97CEpCc8hxA1I3MyrH/TQsanduOcr2xK6mNHjlSI442memeNNuvCGWOyig== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1489:: with SMTP id w9mr24086875qkj.43.1607344483812; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 04:34:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:470:8c46:0:ac92:1e48:b1d6:abca? ([2001:470:8c46:0:ac92:1e48:b1d6:abca]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 84sm2711430qkd.46.2020.12.07.04.34.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Dec 2020 04:34:43 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Rich Brown In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 07:34:42 -0500 Cc: bloat , make-wifi-fast-request@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8AE1D7EC-94E4-4177-A927-9A12DC5B6D7E@gmail.com> References: To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Subject: Re: [Bloat] Good Wi-Fi test programs? 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: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 12:34:44 -0000 Thanks for this response.=20 > On Dec 6, 2020, at 8:00 PM, Jonathan Morton = wrote: >=20 >> On 7 Dec, 2020, at 1:00 am, Rich Brown = wrote: >>=20 >> I would first do the following "easy tests": >>=20 >> - Check for conflicting/overlapping Wi-Fi channels. I am fond of the = free app, WiFi Analyzer from farproc = (http://a.farproc.com/wifi-analyzer) for this test, but there are = several similar Android apps.=20 >> - Compare the signal strength for the DSL modem and the Calix modem, = as shown by WiFi Analyzer=20 >> - Be sure that all computer(s) are using the Calix modem. >> - Use a variety of speed tests: DSLReports, Fast.com, other = favorites? >> - Compare speedtest results when the test computer is close to, or = far from the router. >> - (If possible) compare the performance for both Wi-Fi and Ethernet >> - Shut off the DSL modem on my way out the door to be sure it's not = causing interference or confusing the situation. >>=20 >> Anything else you'd recommend? >=20 > Make sure the customer's devices are using 5GHz rather than 2.4GHz = band, where possible. The Calix devices apparently support both and try = to perform "band steering", but it's worth double checking. >=20 > = https://www.calix.com/content/calix/en/site-prod/library-html/systems-prod= ucts/prem/op/p-gw-op/eth-gw/800e-gc-spg/index.htm?toc.htm?76518.htm Good point - although 2.4GHz may "go farther" in the absence of = interference from neighbors. (See below) > I also read while briefly scanning the accessible documentation that = Calix operates at maximum permitted wifi transmit power and with up to = 80MHz RF bandwidth. While this does maximise the range and throughput = of an individual AP, many such APs in close proximity will see the RF = channel as "occupied" by each others' transmissions more often than if a = lower transmit power were used. The result is that they all shout so = much that they can't hear themselves think, and clients can't get a word = in edgewise to send acks (with generally lower transmit power = themselves). > You should look for evidence of this while analysing channel = occupancy, especially in multi-occupancy buildings. It's probably less = of a concern in detached or semi-detached housing. Our community is extremely rural - most homes are at least 100m apart. = (But that's why I plan to use the WiFi Analyzer app on my android to = look for interfering channels. (One of the items high on my list of = differential diagnosis is that the old DSL modem may still be turned on = and using the same channel...) > I didn't see any mention of Airtime Fairness technology, which is now = a highlighted feature on some other manufacturers' products = (specifically TP-Link). Ask whether that is present or can be = implemented. You may be able to test for it, if you have established a = case where wifi is clearly the bottleneck, by passing a saturating ECN = Capable flow through it and looking for CE marks (and/or ECE feedback), = since Airtime Fairness comes with built-in fq_codel. I have fantasies of our little fiber company telling Calix to "get with = the program" and adopt SQM/ATF. I'll keep dreaming. Thanks. Rich=