From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B52B53CB35 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 15:58:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id t6so10179774ilj.8 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:58:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GZ+yQJaRMWzNrfVibujqEgIAW0N/lsl+V9zcUU6Z5Do=; b=ttvzvRV1sxbz5CQEOp9fJgFSHl+GpjcFYlC145mv9UbPK+ozMLTYFbf5kJeku2AVWR drEAXKy1z9ukvo/nA1FGJUVJ6PiI5cHjQ1flkNvMqydBR55Zy6ddWLYDbsvwd7MY88hG JcQwDXr5BKyqp+1Q6RVt42Qr4jklcprMXqwSFgVQSoqfYPEXZgqvbbSqvyzDwHFI/E3c ylSdirzDT8UoxHA3ypLqNjzBwWoE1MGMzNAudx1Oqoz5zmsiWzwtW7N8FNv0HIUaqCmX 5sXjnXVQlG1lda1Fhq3rLJb4DUKaJdzijFa5mZw3GJf/nLS8iKuKkHTCivsoT8D53PRm i96w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GZ+yQJaRMWzNrfVibujqEgIAW0N/lsl+V9zcUU6Z5Do=; b=ro5ut0/9OkeWWQIxvkT9imuLw5R1N2QvBcS38AVF+muBycH13dsdBdkw3p1xkurUPI v+aQlATx53MWaWCraR8LFu7L2nUoVoJuoYBoQIxZy37Xh5Mbx3FK2Nl3QWAbTt+Vt+u3 IeGN4Pjmo1RhEhZbTLNS4AetTSzbsacCHWA1ZNymvOTFJ0/S+b7sutT3PlAl0yjuuWM0 C5VqcscJMHKUtKJGTkR6tzF+6fUT4fS775+IeILEoUHgSc4vp6sHPeeJoJLJdHEk9s39 R5nKGoFsBQcszujPvjLzCNXAT07xxTrzXI0m7rFcQsM3I4DjttrTNdRxwIn0X0WhJtOO FZgw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3ojwwh2N2NN4HGdTOf83AJ31z4dT22/PwM7UyjLedDkXp7d0J6 Lk8t+nsWetgk/YUbU6B1ux3OsVuf9NK4yIGzx6Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuwNkAndguVtW5oxcp8L+ay5V7mmcUok75KE8EgQ9/QVFvmMXIfaw+6ZLRpfZmS7VZNh+eGw6A6SsdZMH9Tl10= X-Received: by 2002:a92:48d6:: with SMTP id j83mr8510879ilg.287.1585511917075; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:58:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <875zesret5.fsf@toke.dk> <87r1xgpuhm.fsf@toke.dk> In-Reply-To: From: Dave Taht Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 12:58:25 -0700 Message-ID: To: Aaron Wood Cc: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= , bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] Still seeing bloat with a DOCSIS 3.1 modem X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:58:37 -0000 I just finished doing my first openwrt build in a couple years. (with AQL) Trying to summon up the moxie to try it. Found my soldiering iron and usb to serial interfaces.... On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:58 AM Aaron Wood wrote: > > One other thought I've had with this, is that the apu2 is multi-core, and= the i210 is multi-queue. > > Cake/htb aren't, iirc, setup to run on multiple cores (as the rate limite= rs then don't talk to each other). But with the correct tuple hashing in t= he i210, I _should_ be able to split things and do two cores at 500Mbps eac= h (with lots of compute left over). A good test might be sch_mq + cake bandwidth whatever for each hw queue. irqbalancing also may or may not help. > Obviously, that puts a limit on single-connection rates, but as the numbe= r of connections climb, they should more or less even out (I remember Dave = Taht showing the oddities that happen with say 4 streams and 2 cores, where= it's common to end up with 3 streams on the same core). But assuming that= the hashing function results in even sharing of streams, it should be fair= ly balanced (after plotting some binomial distributions with higher "n" val= ues). Still not perfect, especially since streams aren't likely to all be = elephants. One reason why we are seeing "tcp rack" pushed so hard is due to cable modems having multiple channels, and thus ooo packets are probable when you try to push a stream across those channels. Me, I'm reasonably confident we've hit the age of "peak bandwidth" for most things at up/dl rates above 40Mbit. And in the real world at home, a couple hash collissions and unequal distribution really don't matter for real traffic. > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 4:03 AM Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >> >> Sebastian Moeller writes: >> >> > Hi Toke, >> > >> > >> >> On Mar 25, 2020, at 09:58, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >> >> >> >> Aaron Wood writes: >> >> >> >>> I recently upgraded service from 150up, 10dn Mbps to xfinity's gigab= it >> >>> (with 35Mbps up) tier, and picked up a DOCSIS 3.1 modem to go with i= t. >> >>> >> >>> Flent test results are here: >> >>> https://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2020/03/bufferbloat-with-comcast-gi= gabit-with.html >> >>> >> >>> tl/dr; 1000ms of upstream bufferbloat >> >>> >> >>> But it's DOCSIS 3.1, so why isn't PIE working? Theory: It's in DOC= SIS 3.0 >> >>> upstream mode based on the status LEDs. Hopefully it will go away i= f I can >> >>> convince it to run in DOCSIS 3.1 mode. >> >> >> >> I think that while PIE is "mandatory to implement" in DOCSIS 3.1, the >> >> ISP still has to turn it on? So maybe yelling at them will work? (ha!= ) >> >> >> >>> At the moment, however, my WRT1900AC isn't up to the task of dealing= with >> >>> these sorts of downstream rates. >> >>> >> >>> So I'm looking at the apu2, which from this post: >> >>> https://forum.openwrt.org/t/comparative-throughput-testing-including= -nat-sqm-wireguard-and-openvpn/44724 >> >>> >> >>> Will certainly get most of the way there. >> >> >> >> My Turris Omnia is doing fine on my 1Gbps connection (although that >> >> hardly suffers from bloat, so I'm not doing any shaping; did try it >> >> though, and it has no problem with running CAKE at 1Gbps). >> > >> > Well, doing local network flent RRUL stress tests indicated that >> > my omnia (at that time with TOS4/Openwrt18) only allowed up to >> > 500/500 Mbps shaping with bi directionally saturating traffic >> > with full MTU-sized packets. So I undirectional CAKE at 1Gbps >> > can work, but under full load, I did not manage that, what did I >> > wrong? >> >> Hmm, not sure I've actually done full bidirectional shaping. And trying >> it now, it does seem to be struggling... >> >> -Toke > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat --=20 Make Music, Not War Dave T=C3=A4ht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-435-0729