From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x236.google.com (mail-oi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236]) (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 2B27721F263 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oift201 with SMTP id t201so39198236oif.3 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:47:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=x31mFeIPMZj6tNgSSqADgpmyiJRgOJkBW4IOOf46Tp4=; b=yw+qmZapFpyawfkYICYbSYKiIdk+/Ih+OifK8IOs4IjdIHa3Sp5Csi5e2Cj+21nOOx nixwa+ECn00X3CjpYC99knOpXG2/yEVjEsaRCaagb/O4aNxH/a8uH+EBCtBNYs1keRSz Wb2g5vVso1R3AYpBDvz2xFKjeBdezb1Kq+x7nV5TdL5oqxxo/2ha+DajbNbBBFRWXJuV bQT3ByOMAps4UesOoGvTf3zDCCPoO8jTl4xieywJp8ti9Yl+ExsOgupJlDQ98DvOKbsJ tlESyFC8tsCjz1D1mJxiVk9lej5Ucc+LCw77+y1I3b524p8DjLn9qj8F0BLl9+0pjTPu T1eA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.148.166 with SMTP id tt6mr1945349obb.63.1430369250001; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.71.139 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:47:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:47:29 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: bloat , Justin Beech Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 04:47:59 -0000 revisiting the ratings on these tests below, the first test should get an F, somehow. That is *normal* behavior for a comcast link. The rest look pretty good, fq_codel generally gets an A, pure AQM a B. On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > For reference, this is the comcast link under test, with no shaping at al= l: > > 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 result= s > > http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/yurtlab100/tcp_download_vs_dslreport= s.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 > -- > Dave T=C3=A4ht > Open Networking needs **Open Source Hardware** > > https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricRaymond/posts/JqxCe2pFr67 --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Open Networking needs **Open Source Hardware** https://plus.google.com/u/0/+EricRaymond/posts/JqxCe2pFr67