On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:44 PM Jonathan Morton wrote: > > On 25 Jul, 2018, at 12:39 am, Benjamin Cronce wrote: > > > > Just looking visual at the DSLReport graphs, I more normally see maybe a > few 40ms-150ms ping spikes, while my own attempts to shape can get me > several 300ms spikes. I would really need a lot more samples and actually > run the numbers on them, but just causally looking at them, I get the sense > that mine is worse. > > That could just be an artefact of your browser's scheduling latency. Try > running an independent ping test alongside for verification. > > Currently one of my machines has Chrome exhibiting frequent and very > noticeable "hitching", while Firefox on the same machine is much smoother. > Similar behaviour would easily be enough to cause such data anomalies. > > - Jonathan Morton Challenge accepted. 10 pings per second at my ISP's speedtest server. My wife was watching Sing for the millionth time on Netflix during these tests. Idle Packets: sent=300, rcvd=300, error=0, lost=0 (0.0% loss) in 29.903240 sec RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 1.554 / 2.160 / 3.368 / 0.179 Bandwidth in kbytes/sec: sent=0.601, rcvd=0.601 shaping ------------------------ During download Packets: sent=123, rcvd=122, error=0, lost=1 (0.8% loss) in 12.203803 sec RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 1.459 / 2.831 / 8.281 / 0.955 Bandwidth in kbytes/sec: sent=0.604, rcvd=0.599 During upload Packets: sent=196, rcvd=195, error=0, lost=1 (0.5% loss) in 19.503948 sec RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 1.608 / 3.247 / 5.471 / 0.853 Bandwidth in kbytes/sec: sent=0.602, rcvd=0.599 no shaping ----------------------------- During download Packets: sent=147, rcvd=147, error=0, lost=0 (0.0% loss) in 14.604027 sec RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 1.161 / 2.110 / 13.525 / 1.069 Bandwidth in kbytes/sec: sent=0.603, rcvd=0.603 During upload Packets: sent=199, rcvd=199, error=0, lost=0 (0.0% loss) in 19.802377 sec RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 1.238 / 2.071 / 4.715 / 0.373 Bandwidth in kbytes/sec: sent=0.602, rcvd=0.602 Now I really feel like disabling shaping on my end. The TCP streams have increased loss without shaping, but my ICMP looks better. Better flow isolation? Need me some fq_Codel or Cake. Going to set fq_Codel to something like target 3ms and 45ms RTT. Due to CDNs and regional gaming servers, something like 95% of everything is less than 30ms away and something like 80% is like less than 15ms away. Akamai 1-2ms Netflix 2-3ms Hulu 2-3ms Cloudflare 9ms Discord 9ms World of Warcraft/Battle.Net 9ms Youtube 12ms Too short of tests, but interesting. On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:58 PM Dave Taht wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:39 PM Benjamin Cronce wrote: > > Just looking visual at the DSLReport graphs, I more normally see maybe a > few 40ms-150ms ping spikes, while my own attempts to shape can get me > several 300ms spikes. I would really need a lot more samples and actually > run the numbers on them, but just causally looking at them, I get the sense > that mine is worse. > > too gentle we are perhaps. out of cpu you may be. > > Possible FairQ uses more CPU than expected, but I have load tested my firewall, using HFSC with ~ 8 queues shaped to 1Gb/s and Codel on the queues. Using iperf, I was able to send ~1.4Mil pps, about 1Gb/s of 64byte UDP packets. pfSense was claiming about 1.4Mpps ingress the LAN and 1.4Mpps egress the WAN. CPU was hovering around 17% on my quad core with CPU load roughly equal across all 4 cores. Core i5 with low latency DDR3 and Intel i350 NIC is nice. MTU sized packets iperf using bi-directional TCP results in about 1.85Gb/s, which is inline with the ~940Mb/s per direction on Ethernet, and something ridiculous like 4% CPU and 150 interrupts per second. This NIC is magical. I'm assuming soft interrupts.