From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa1-x30.google.com (mail-oa1-x30.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::30]) (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 8E1123B29E for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oa1-x30.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-288fa5ce8f0so1280956fac.3 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:41:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1729885275; x=1730490075; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XVVH7ieuKWYcmWdvYapV6So9ofCgZvTsAtYjJU+v7GI=; b=aZ/l+C9hgX52QPhaew9koD93GSE7mnAuQuCJjJ3X5ZYkMG5hME+X4VcCRUlV7zzg72 gbj+L0dYTckkg50uFNV7Usa7CtzDgPWs8TXl27j9UMjyp3jgSAaLF3XczJvjwL8dJdbz PlzrYbxFoEL4gA0ZHOG0vZk4X78uCVv3bGtEJVurgF16lixJJI6Z2+2ur6yHgLkF7m/V 6QqO/B8EHmRAxj5w/ULX6YHRWgMpoqxHUo2b8am/AxRKio2YcGLLti3sY0xCRQqX+PV4 GE++JcEg9HGgzm6VKhCv7v2ovfWfLUD5hMuh3H3JwaSLvTNn9iSEP20ibbM0V8vs7wMw ZhJA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729885275; x=1730490075; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=XVVH7ieuKWYcmWdvYapV6So9ofCgZvTsAtYjJU+v7GI=; b=ZNo0TshPSuBZSGWXNn6vz+2y/v5eGzy2g2kaJU+dqu+g0DeWNv2XgEHthhvCMQ+fTq O7N4cz/vaPTv/5KKVkriLdR+czsQrwyak0twWWg7GDB7LjzlRl+5UVlJK3OWto7/IQ8C vQxdPGNQCa01evhGeerYCVvrO3+zEPFpeTBn5wdO202PUnO0GLfXez065J90u5aFp3wF AQjLTh/DpUXAcO63FObty4ib2fheW7x0mAEwT1X/ynpTf840gje5FBR3h05WcSCZxUlN scGUZ8NN16FdknVOwRahPRKoeDbY2pwExpFBr5CNubKFc3uyo/jh6ra4pirJ4gGmq6EL oCKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz2s8TCzERFjlgN8j/1ssKta61bOBFb1kKO9YLYO0M8pu0458iH nV9awtyfXrrK7L6BxVDAZQOVvnh3D5geJ6+sFIqJI1gHqXVGkXD6DbXdzx2B//FFd621kK0e55w ol9lN5vmibWVuVwPfSbBZ0BfReVQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGDg5CA6U99LzPdyvukoBqxxHtjf9ASQPsA1zFDmxeufemkObhYGXcGd1ljyGL0ns6WsIOi2dXMvxrQuAPSu/0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:f111:b0:288:50aa:7714 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-29051bfbe4fmr723904fac.24.1729885274759; Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:41:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <98eeb4b3-a8f8-4875-b021-aab0d5336959@fau.de> In-Reply-To: <98eeb4b3-a8f8-4875-b021-aab0d5336959@fau.de> From: Dave Taht Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:41:02 -0700 Message-ID: To: Joerg Deutschmann Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004dea450625524d2e" Subject: Re: [Bloat] The NetEm qdisc does not work in conjunction with other qdiscs 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: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:41:15 -0000 --0000000000004dea450625524d2e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What I would typically do is setup netem on an inbound qdisc and whatever is under test on the outbound. even then, care is needed to ensure netem itself is not the bottleneck, has an appropriate packet limit (I use millions), and that you are not running out of cpu. For example it is really hard to pull 4gbit on cheap hw with default qdiscs. On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 11:54=E2=80=AFAM Joerg Deutschmann via Bloat < bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > bringing up again the question from a previous message to this list... > > > https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Best_practices_for_benchm= arking_Codel_and_FQ_Codel/#the-netem-qdisc-does-not-work-in-conjunction-wit= h-other-qdiscs > says to not use NetEm together with other qdiscs. > > Is this still true? > > How could one emulate bottlenecks together with fq_codel? > > Best regards > Joerg > > > On 15.01.24 13:24, O. P. via Bloat wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > I'm trying to set up a testbed to evaluate different AQM techniques > > using docker containers. > > My first idea to create congestion was to use netem. However I later > > came across > > > https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Best_practices_for_benchm= arking_Codel_and_FQ_Codel/ > < > https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Best_practices_for_benchm= arking_Codel_and_FQ_Codel/> > which discourages using netem. Since the document is from 2014 and also > states that "netem has been improving", my question was wether the curren= t > netem has improved sufficiently to be used to get realistic results. > > If netem has improved sufficienly, what would be the correct way to use > > netem along fq, fq-codel or codel for example ? > > If not, is HTB still the best way to perform rate limiting ? Is there a > > prefered way to combine HTB with AQMs ? > > > > Best regards > > > > John > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bloat mailing list > > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos --0000000000004dea450625524d2e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What I would typically=C2=A0do is setup netem on an inboun= d qdisc and whatever is under test on the outbound.

even= then, care is needed to ensure netem itself is not the bottleneck, has an = appropriate=C2=A0packet limit (I use millions), and that you are not runnin= g out of cpu. For example it is really hard to pull 4gbit on cheap hw with = default qdiscs.=C2=A0

On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 11:54=E2=80=AFAM Joerg D= eutschmann via Bloat <blo= at@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
Dear all,

bringing up again the question from a previous message to this list...

https://www.b= ufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Best_practices_for_benchmarking_Codel_an= d_FQ_Codel/#the-netem-qdisc-does-not-work-in-conjunction-with-other-qdiscs<= /a>
says to not use NetEm together with other qdiscs.

Is this still true?

How could one emulate bottlenecks together with fq_codel?

Best regards
Joerg


On 15.01.24 13:24, O. P. via Bloat wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I'm trying to set up a testbed to evaluate different AQM technique= s
> using docker containers.
> My first idea to create congestion was to use netem. However I later <= br> > came across
> https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Best_practices_for_benc= hmarking_Codel_and_FQ_Codel/ <https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/co= del/wiki/Best_practices_for_benchmarking_Codel_and_FQ_Codel/> which = discourages using netem. Since the document is from 2014 and also states th= at "netem has been improving", my question was wether the current= netem has improved sufficiently to be used to get realistic results.
> If netem has improved sufficienly, what would be the correct way to us= e
> netem along fq, fq-codel or codel for example ?
> If not, is HTB still the best way to perform rate limiting ? Is there = a
> prefered way to combine HTB with AQMs ?
>
> Best regards
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat= @lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat _______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@list= s.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat


--
Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos
--0000000000004dea450625524d2e--