From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-iy0-f171.google.com (mail-iy0-f171.google.com [209.85.210.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 228B2200377 for ; Sun, 1 Jan 2012 16:40:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagw33 with SMTP id w33so41284392iag.16 for ; Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:40:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zWC4i+Ss5ygrEl/d5M6PowTQVOI8sFh12GkAy9jNdQA=; b=THftLjUgWqsD/GvDeFTX8EVnLhiUqeVaj6mbSpgAXqafz4joupOimSrSts5XeOWhN3 WQT9sLgsDtiKBJRjpFLmzWvHDi8OJnZ7e5MKwER68JD5VmwomHGuXSnIJ2qldUG+3qFo SDhsEqpz/m99lkKCDqJozpLChdiGmKoHdSn6c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.29.6 with SMTP id p6mr48051229icc.44.1325464837908; Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:40:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.159.193 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Jan 2012 16:40:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 01:40:37 +0100 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: bloat Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Bloat] finally... winning on wired! 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: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:40:40 -0000 Net-next (linux 3.3 w/bql) finally got stable enough to not crash very often, and my next cut at cerowrt, is also stable enough to not crash very often... and so I got a chance over the holidays to collect some data and benchmark the QFQ-related stuff I've been working on for the past several months. For starters, this is what a 100Mbit network looks like with the linux defaults (actually, with TSO and GSO disabled), compared against SFQ, and QFQ. http://www.teklibre.com/~d/bloat/pfifo_fast_vs_sfq_qfq_linear.png You need a log scale to see that one clearly! http://www.teklibre.com/~d/bloat/pfifo_fast_vs_sfq_qfq_log.png SFQ has generally been quite good in many respects. SFQ also does improved hashing on net-next. But: QFQ seemed very promising also, and it took until now to see it clearly, with BQL turned on. To look in more detail at sfq vs qfq, under even heavier load: http://www.teklibre.com/~d/bloat/pfifo_sfq_vs_qfq_linear50.png It's really very rare in my life that I've seen a win vs an existing system of these orders of magnitude. It's taken me a week to make sure the results were real, and repeatable... I thought about sitting on them for a while longer actually. I'd really like someone else to repeat these tests and tell me I'm not seeing things! I have hopes QFQ will do even better at 10Mbit vs SFQ. The raw data and scripts are in my deBloat repo on github. The apache benchmark results were also encouraging, as was TCP_RR, but I haven't plotted them yet. https://github.com/dtaht/deBloat/tree/master/test/results The BQL-enabled kernel I'm using is here: http://huchra.bufferbloat.net/~d/bql/ (warning! it WILL crash occasionally) The bql version of cerowrt - well, there's multiple versions, I'm pretty sure the latest will be fine, haven't tried it. Sadly, no real progress on wireless as yet. Also I have to finish up some code to test the performance of this stuff under a 'soft' bandwidth limit scenario fully. And I'm not going to have time to do so for several weeks. There are also interesting possible interactions with bittorrent, etc, by adopting a queueing system that is so 'fair' in nature. So... the code I have thus far is out there in deBloat, have fun with it. I enjoyed learning what little lua I did over the holiday, I hope you enjoy the results. Happy New Year. --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 FR Tel: 0638645374 http://www.bufferbloat.net