From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (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 ECFDB21F39F; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x69so13826843oia.5; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:21 -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=OECryU1dZ94eVGqPhit5ngckY9oMUuqiQOfaT0Wd0iA=; b=vXEdOkO8YGQC69uiO3EcOh9TbUNzui8YZyeCVcsJkfUoIUVRfA3N/OYA8ERLVFQ/8t YPI19aVDZQ5+dpopSNPGLwtWl+05Gdz1ZmjPg4mlfmOm++dJ4itfztWTUsmjhoULNrie zwNurS7+aadxJwaK6VQ+6G1Lpb3Fy7w88cN5pmYUJ83mWL9FaNGz6rknLeLy7G4mH1rH BIddH4BTRF06RCXxoQM37dtBbFk8KX1ZW63h9g7zMPyA52BkiI2ubRJSOtuEs0CLJrKi 7KlBkhBEp6xmMY0c5WzBGdARZPjPuxSGkFEGd63J/ityxWkEJ4yyA+zLQzinOM6yP3BR IS4A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.144.136 with SMTP id sm8mr8664354obb.63.1425013941814; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.51.66 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54EFF9F2.5070902@candelatech.com> References: <54EE6222.5030408@candelatech.com> <54EE9F84.6060508@candelatech.com> <54EFF9F2.5070902@candelatech.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:12:21 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Isaac Konikoff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cerowrt-devel , bloat 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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 05:12:51 -0000 I don't quite get what you mean. Can you mark what you want in gimp or inkscape, and put it up somewhere? (you can post edit the .pdf or .svg versions in inkscape) On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Isaac Konikoff wrote: > Something I'm not quite getting on the rtt_fair tests is that the upload = and > download labels do not look right for my test setup...how can I use > netperf-wrapper better? > > The lanforge box is sending and receiving all traffic with the AP under t= est > in the middle, where eth1 to staX is download and staX to eth1 is upload. > > So I setup the virtual sta's to associate with the AP, then run the > following commands for the rtt_fair4be test: > netserver > netperf-wrapper -H sta1 -H sta2 -H sta3 -H sta4 --local-bind eth1 -x -t > netgear6300 rtt_fair4be -f plot > > However if I run a tcp_upload, tcp_download or tcp_bidirectional I can > change the order of the arguments so that the upload/download labels matc= h > what each interface is reporting: > > netperf-wrapper -H eth1 --local-bind sta1 -x -t netgear6300 tcp_download = -f > plot > > Thanks for any help... > > Isaac > > > On 02/25/2015 08:37 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Isaac Konikoff >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 02/25/2015 04:23 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Morton >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 bandwidt= h >>>>> anywhere near the upload (am I right in assuming it should ideally be >>>>> about >>>>> equal?), and the only ones with even halfway acceptable latency are t= he >>>>> ones >>>>> with least throughput in either direction. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And I suspect that this was a test at the highest possible MCS rates >>>> and txpower. Isaac? >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, highest MCS for each AP and fw defaulted tx power. I can experimen= t >>> with attenuation and lower MCS rates as well. >> >> >> Be prepared to be horrified in disbelief at your results at the lower >> rates... and post them anyway. >> >> I note that rtt_fair4be is a pretty stressful, artificial benchmark, >> and to truly stress things out requires more >> than one tcp flow per station in each direction, or attempting to also >> exercise the 802.11e queues. Or interference. Or multicast. >> >> I do believe, that once these enormous latencies are clobbered via >> various techniques in make-wifi-fast that it is possible to get >> bandwidth per station over tcp to degrade nearly linearly, and achieve >> close to the theoretical rate of the air, and for latencies to remain >> (on this 4 station test) typically in the 4-14ms range at all but the >> lowest MCS rates. >> >> IMHO an AP that one day does well on these tests will also do much >> better on a variety of others. :) >> >> btw, I show a detailed graph of TCP's actual behavior under >> circumstances like these >> at nearly every talk, with data taken on the actual conference wifi. >> It never occurred to me once, to show the bar chart! (out of the 14+ >> plots available). >> >> It might be helpful on your next test run to also do the simplest >> tests to a single station over each AP >> for a reference (tcp_upload, tcp_download, and tcp_bidirectional). >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - 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