From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::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 096A621F1C4 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obfe9 with SMTP id e9so93944292obf.1 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:28:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DShY2RFSfajwfgVOZx+dZhGLv15XmEs2LgYx0TzaxIM=; b=BSGNDR82cDM8i6qn+Qd1xN/C4MuXF1Pm+Pu0/7f//K2S24Yb52AR4ORc9wrAdmi4qP w2LFudD7cOgPX6vzvRFwwxEftrdsyA2mBY+wKgq8KbD41qaIWqi1l5lMqZD4dF63ie0g 72RxtY2ejlcSqQRi9NrVeCgj0Bx1Eh8w1Epj79c84nVnEJtnmD+WA264RB6GHsXq3TIS kct2F6nSGDx8gSs8RSzcxHekNyvhfFkVpOP0CfyoMXR0U3lVoYVHv/W5CCnw7658u6Pe 6GmzWQLE+/ev41kBOCNQRK1cwaBGmaQhNl9YwZugPb1dmBqY/LOeiNr6T+WKPFul7bKN IrBQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.103.36 with SMTP id ft4mr11823002oeb.39.1430170124733; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.71.139 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:28:44 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: bloat , Justin Beech Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Bloat] some 110Mbit cable testing of the new dslreports stuff 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, 27 Apr 2015 21:29:14 -0000 For reference, this is the comcast link under test, with no shaping at all: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377563 (horrific, isn't it?) I did a few fq_codel + ecn tests http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377389 http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377429 And cake: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377505 No ecn fq_codel: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377443 no ecn with pie: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377488 no ecn with ns2_codel: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377563 no ecn with codel: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377703 It is difficult to conclude anything from the download tests without going through the captures, although the uplink tests look reasonable compared to the rrul tests. If it wasn't for the pie result, I would assume it was the browser misbehaving on downloads, or the server. The tcp_download tests taken with the same setup with netperf-wrapper show what I had assumed til now a normal variance of latency. http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/yurtlab100.tgz is that set of results http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/yurtlab100/tcp_download_vs_dslreports.= png Puzzled, I repeated the pie with no ecn test: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377727 turned off ecn for a fq_codel test on the tcp itself: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377765 and for this fq_codel test, dropped the inbound shaper from 115 mbit down to 110, which did improve matters somewhat. http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/377786 [1] both ns2_codel and cake are experimental --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Open Networking needs **Open Source Hardware** https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricRaymond/posts/JqxCe2pFr67