Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] routers you can throw off the back of a truck

Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] routers you can throw off the back of a truck

[Dave Taht]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Valent Turkovic
<valent@otvorenamreza.org> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> our mission is to provide internet in humanitarian and crisis
> situations to as many people as possible, and to make bandwidth fairly
> distributed between users and to have low bufferbloat.
>
> Issue with working out in crisis stations is that you don't know what
> kind of uplink you will get, and bandwidth you get is much often
> variable than constant. I have tested 3G/4G uplinks and download can
> be in and range from 100Mbps to 5 Mbps, especially with mobile nodes
> (we sometimes put router, battery and 3G/4G modem in backpack and go
> where it is needed).

Not being sure of the state of the LTE/3g/4g market (I haven't paid
much attention in several years) I posted the question to sierra
wireless's site
(registration required) here
https://forum.sierrawireless.com/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=9444

A far better way to try and find the right LTE hardware to use, IMHO,
would be for all those concerned to go to each manufacturer of
wireless gear's forums and raise the question, rather than being
isolated here. huawei, etc. (pick one, post the question, tell the
lists here the link to the thread, and we'll see what happened. wash,
rinse, repeat)

I have mildly more hope for pci-e derived lte interfaces being fixable
than usb ones, but know very little about how the hardware is
currently designed.

I would like very much to know of one bufferbloat-free lte interface
or of one that could be fixed as part of make-wifi-fast.
>
> Is there anyway to configure any queuing technique in Linux kernel
> that so it distributes bandwidth equally between users and to keep lag
> (bufferbloat) as low as possible, but without needing to define
> absolute values for download and upload. For bandwidth distribution I
> know that Mikrotik has really awesome technique called PCQ [1] and
> AFAIK there is no technique as PCQ in Linux kernel, the closes I have
> found is SFQ, if you know any other similar queueing techniques in
> Linux kernel please share.
>
> I have been testing different queue setup scripts for fq_codel in
> OpenWrt, to see how they work with properly setup bandwidth limits and
> also with completely wrong bandwidth limits. Test have been done with
> 3G/4G USB modems and on 100/10 Mbps fibre optics connection with
> TP-LINK WDR3600 router running latest Chaos Calmer OpenWrt.
>
> Also I have also seen that pfSense mentions that HFSC [2] that is
> "very effective for VoIP on links that degrade quickly, such as 3G/4G,
> but it can be complex to configure and tweak for proper operation." so
> I tested HFSC queuing technique with fq_codel with  and results show
> that it also doesn't work if bandwith is not configured correctly
>
> So far all fq_codel + queue setup scripts on OpenWrt I have tested
> give low bufferbloat results only when banddwidth is configured to
> around 90% of available bandwidth, once I setup it to 200% of
> available bandwidth I get really bad bufferbloat results, so any
> current options just don't work if bandwidth changes.
>
> Please don't assume I know anything, if you have any idea what I could
> test or how to get better results in real world conditions please
> share...
>
> Here are my current results it they are interesting to anybody.
>
> Fiber connection 100/10 Mbps
> no qos: 150/110 ms - 94/10.4 Mbps - http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2635531
> no qos: 235/132 ms - 94.2/10.4 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2635586
> no qos: 160/130 ms - 96.8/10.5 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2635646
>
> Fiber connection: SQM 95000/9500 on eth0.2
> fq_codel + nxt_routed_hfsc.qos: 203/42 ms - 95.2/7.2 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2629376
> fq_codel + layer_cake.qos: 193/135 ms - 93.1/7.7 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2629461
> fq_codel + layer_cake.qos: 201/116 ms - 93.6/8.2 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2629502
>
> Fiber connection: 100/10 Mbps - SQM 90/9 Mbps (90000/9000) on eth0.2
> fq_codel + simple: 63/58 ms - 83/4 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2629696
> fq_codel + simple: 87/55 ms - 84.2/4.6 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2629939
> fq_codel + nxt_routed_hfsc: 130/46 ms - 94.6/6.9 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2630019
> fq_codel + nxt_routed_hfsc: 160/38 ms - 93/9.1 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2630082
> fq_codel + layer_cake: 140/120 ms - 91.3/6.6 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2629597
> fq_codel + layer_cake: 140/190 ms - 92.5/10.2 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2630122
> fq_codel + simplest: 41/35 ms - 81.4/3.7 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2629988
> fq_codel + simplest: 57/56 ms - 84.5/8.8 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2630228
> fq_codel + piece_of_cake: 175/119 ms - 93/7.5 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2629749
> fq_codel + piece_of_cake: 215/146 ms - 89.6/11.7 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2630294
> fq_codel + simple_pppoe: 61/48 ms - 84.1/8.5 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2630153
>
> Fiber connection: 100/10 Mbps - SQM 200/20 Mbps (200000/20000) on eth0.2
> fq_codel + simple: 102/132 ms - 94.8/10.3 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2630347
> fq_codel + nxt_routed_hfsc: 150/133 ms - 94.1/10.5 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2630386
> fq_codel + simplest: 178/148 ms - 92.7/10.5 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2630488
> fq_codel + piece_of_cake: 192/122 ms - 95/10.7 Mbps -
> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/2635507
>
>
> Cheers,
> Valent.
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Queues_-_PCQ
> [2] https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Traffic_Shaping_Guide
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Outback Dingo <outbackdingo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.meshpoint.me/ design and purpose seems very cool.
>>>
>>> Given all the nifty new autoconfig stuff in homenet like hnetd and
>>> source specific babel - perhaps we are closer than ever before to
>>> actually being able to throw this kind off stuff off the back of a
>>> truck and have it "just work".
>>>
>>> If only we had bufferbloat-free lte uplink hardware (has any
>>> materialized, perhaps in a mini-pci-e form factor?)
>>>
>>> It does now seem semi-possible to hack on enodeBs nowadays:
>>>
>>> http://bellard.org/lte/
>>>
>>> Are any LTE providers supporting dhcp-pd or some equivalent for
>>> getting routable ipv6 subnets?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Täht
>>> Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
>>
>>
>> There have been "numerous" autoconfiguration setups deployed on OpenWRT by a
>> few different people, even myself
>> adding in 4G/LTE would be nice, though this has been possible for a while,
>> even ive used the BladeRF in a "BTS" environment
>> for testing of WhiteSpace wireless VOIP, and Disaster Scenerios, grab an
>> Alix APU load OpenWRT, plug a bladeRF into the USB
>> load OpenBTS on it and place it out in the wild.... Instant white space
>> telco
>>
>>
>>>
>>> https://www.gofundme.com/savewifi
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>
>>