From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (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 6A1A23B2A4 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 02:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 34so6439219qtb.13 for ; Wed, 04 Oct 2017 23:39:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pIxegBVxW+bhvOojICGZLRN0U2/moTLUCmlp0kpkqEs=; b=JVWtBfW38uZN2HYXhOJe4H7xEnM/EsEqo/smGHh15haMFgS39nV4SC9LhzdLu5suud 4eQj6IHD8GWcRcL77rAKQhfxxQEJM4GD0+wPl/Rg/7QOwPePqBlEYhh2tBJIqhQm2fhs QVZNjVe3QzgrdW1S4VGfWbJk2VLVYqzEA9NAYBxjL4D3wUub6TtSv53gdkoEZQucrvJi hPr47KWPIRaIjpCNlNeJD0Jny0fjPnsJxvA7dfwmZOoqHUrJcZ4OLoVAp4Y76GXyw6/t 6MyJld3A0ifUf0Y4Hz3Pl6ipDnLCxwNCJRme55N13WsDQa9mxHegB2Ng4JB2OouKEr3H uwoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pIxegBVxW+bhvOojICGZLRN0U2/moTLUCmlp0kpkqEs=; b=Y2YnBsF2ks+mSiXLRemtHjqC2kdiCpnwIJWRhCFZ8lZ4MwT5i8j8DZMFMCrSqDFN3u +25+UFWSxxLLkkBCJigXnU3VnljZ9u9/RST49L6fKNtu01CBmCtwgHn7bRtvPSqgWie/ WyHgrIldxoxsULSwHFP2G8X9mtnuRRZCSIIA6/EHSvjxXfJoFmYYyPhLA3N1P/UojHhG oc79Bsu/IpGOWr+Pycty0arIafXfuLbKM7hNt2R0cgJE6bcbb4+6bRmRWHPAOMIOLUzJ YSnss0j9cQenzjdACDV2j5qcfVaPUcQjf7pte39Opsn+XK8YG01ihHjWdRCF8hJYehv0 BoKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXuwKm8nb9s8h7n7zU5vctNVX6i2INY4DygNCCF53dGveo24V8r jhX/+JSdY0VbIwIUQLOsw413Pmlii/+tNEeVlRU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBAr5h8X7Gjn+59BpgoGlnrG07sVfzzqZiEbjt7GLnh6vTvcfZTe6ozXn6be1RYN1JXksYucdiRUxa3L/QHfUA= X-Received: by 10.237.32.228 with SMTP id 91mr13224712qtb.277.1507185565988; Wed, 04 Oct 2017 23:39:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.193.115 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 23:39:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Dave Taht Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 23:39:25 -0700 Message-ID: To: Aaron Wood Cc: bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Bloat] fremont flent node: what's the network setup there? 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: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 06:39:26 -0000 the simplest answer is for you to send me an ssh key I can put there. second simplest is for me to fire up a new box and new kernel over there and put your ssh key there also. It would not surprise me for linode to have a rate limit somewhere elsewhere.... Lemme go spin up a new box in a minute. It's currently sch_fq and cubic on kernel 4.8.6-x86_64-linode78. also: net.ipv4.tcp_ecn =3D 1 net.ipv4.tcp_ecn_fallback =3D 1 On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Aaron Wood wrote: > I'm comparing some numbers between the fremont node and a friend's Drople= t > running netserver. > > We've previous noted that we don't see more than a 120Mbps download rate > from the fremont node. > > Today I was able to confirm in multiple back-to-back runs that the fremon= t > node was only giving me about 120Mbps of throughput, while both dslreport= s > and the droplet were giving me ~180Mbps (and 500ms of latency in the cabl= e > head-end). > > However, I noticed when running without SQM on my router here at home tha= t > download latency from the fremont node was virtually non-existent, vs. th= e > very large latency that I was seeing from both the droplet and dsl-report= s. > > Box-plots: > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1xfqN4OiFEPODI4cEZjZ1NGeGVtc3RKbGJQR3lt= aHhyb1Bz/view > > That very, very low send latency from the fremont node makes me think tha= t > it might be running BBR as the default congestion control algorithm? If = I > run the cubic-reno test without any SQM, the results look pretty awful, b= ut > without specifying the TCP cc alg, it seems to behave very, very well > (albeit not as much throughput as I think I should get). > > Re-enabling cake (at 170Mbps downstream, 12Mbps up), I can't seem to get > much more than that 120Mbps from the router (even though I've tested it a= t > 900Mbps as the netserver host itself). Am I running into a cpu limitatio= n > in the NAT/forwarding modules? > > -Aaron > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619