From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x236.google.com (mail-ob0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A46D921F36D; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id nt9so7533436obb.13; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:23:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t3iJ0tBEjJAo0XqmIAMMfa2FrghGjcpZxgZttw9bYXU=; b=q+7pTNu0pHD89M/0D3wk8+txVnurFVWUKnQJk9NQMACW9DtSH8dSpXCe555jzshIPz LYicmESt5VslRK9Wa/qW4xAES+ZqQjPbBf8Ta8cwKk4pLtwZcZDdUt/M3Jzj1crlaXfg 5iivHGN3UuMrOSAB34+hlTdtm5LyczPVHBy8pBZ39m0+SITkqZhidLuVNlJIyaOfeBm1 5TkvMHwscy0XaBzn8xyiDbwwGaSHMoC1NMWSgYHZa77ZvsfGa4O+SmW31jaURcifWPpG 5521zPQcF5kioaDxE9Fb23Fc/ochPCVb41GEZrewaLFVrKan4PqMjewpoIV8jdKXEjVM vr+w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.103.234 with SMTP id fz10mr4129529oeb.11.1424910186569; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:23:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.51.66 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:23:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <54EE6222.5030408@candelatech.com> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:23:06 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Jonathan Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: bloat , cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Bloat] Two d-link products tested for bloat... 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, 26 Feb 2015 00:23:35 -0000 On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Morton wr= ote: >> Here's a comparison plot of box totals: > http://www.candelatech.com/downloads/rtt_fair4be-comparison-box-plot.png > > That's a real mess. All of them utterly fail to get download bandwidth > anywhere near the upload (am I right in assuming it should ideally be abo= ut > equal?), and the only ones with even halfway acceptable latency are the o= nes > with least throughput in either direction. And I suspect that this was a test at the highest possible MCS rates and txpower. Isaac? > > - Jonathan Morton --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb