From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x22b.google.com (mail-oi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (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 198D021F669 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oies66 with SMTP id s66so9857606oie.1 for ; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 12:44:39 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=BIag1I1H7mRxJlPof54nPbboUXzsdMg8ZhW+Kv0Gvxk=; b=ONQ3BYID9vMlLI+w/xoTIZ0usDgj96oN3XZciDBXfhalCmYLnwio7nVKWiU3y+YSbe OQkXH1wG6GhL2ODMQ9UtU1JYcUsJaONw1ZN4qHITH4zWZmKok4KvYWyeRihGkdqS5me1 qrl9ROLaJ1UUgULe4TJuku5SqY3Xg8aseAuUJhIToa6Od6334aJ54JVafN1p/2NwGpO2 TspqkklAv3H3LiOgZ7tZFsA3iMk+UJAEmEK8xISxVhS4SilR64Hske2d0TjwMgFJ99bq l0q61TvKiacfSqVOQ6yFFHn/95rOlueF0jNbk6owdqHC8r0qn0cBk58tgQGgSOUw5lWo SWRw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.4.138 with SMTP id 132mr2643991oie.11.1433533479016; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 12:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.105.129 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:44:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5571E36E.2050607@k.gg> References: <7D4DDC3F-9233-4E07-B59B-AA1368CA9D4E@gmail.com> <5571B334.7050607@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <5571DA4E.5060809@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <5571DC01.70301@k.gg> <5571E1A7.9050403@k.gg> <5571E322.1010403@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> <5571E36E.2050607@k.gg> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:44:38 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Adrian Kennard Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bloat goes away, but with ~25% speed loss? 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: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 19:45:08 -0000 On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Adrian Kennard wrote: > On 05/06/2015 18:57, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote: >> It was the uplink side and the recent adoption of Zyxel kit which >> made me wonder out loud to AA-Andrew earlier today regarding A&A >> bufferbloat experiences/testing on that side of things with the new >> modems. You're an ISP that would have some clue in that regard and >> hence hopefully a bit of clout with the OEM to do things right (see >> baby jumbo frames support) It's me being curious again...sorry! > > We can try... Working hard to fix some showstoppers like MTU on bridging > and the like, first. I found dslreports.com's summary stats page: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/isp/AS20712 not enough samples, but pretty good results. Comparisons were interesting also. I love a competitive marketplace! (And am admiring all the tools for continuous link monitoring AA does) On the downlink, I am relatively uninformed until today. A lot of ISPs have mentioned HFSC+SFQ without much details. There are several things, conflated together, that are hurting dsl performance on the uplink nowadays. 1) A lot of DSL modem firmware used to some form of fq buried deep in the driver. FT used to mandate SQF, for example. 2) a lot of modems would exert ethernet hardware flow control at very minimal packet depths. (hardware flow control is so correct for a cable, fiber, or dsl "modem" - but as manufacturers started embedding switches into the modem, this feature has been getting lost) 3) connecting routers used to have a default packet depth of 100 (or less!) and thus responded to flow control more sanely than the current linux default of 1000. I would be surprised if firebrick had a packet depth that high. as for 2 and 3, I know a LOT of people that passionately hold onto their old dsl modems because they are "better" than anything newer they've tried. I know one guy that treasures his circa-1998 one... however, as fq_codel and pie (any latency sensitive aqm) work GREAT with hardware flow control, this would work better than any fixed packet limit. A metric ton of people have reported results like ipfire did in this case: http://planet.ipfire.org/post/ipfire-2-13-tech-preview-fighting-bufferbloat (And I keep hoping the DCB people in DCs are taking notice.) 4) In order to get higher reliability (for things like multicast udp tv), a lot of DSL providers use "interleaving", which incurs quite a bit of added latency on the link. 5? anyone? -- What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast