Re: [Bloat] Bloat goes away, but with ~25% speed loss?

[Aaron Wood <woody77@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1555 bytes --]

What about the link type?  If there are extra overheads going on, that's
going to muck with the calculations (possibly adding latency, but shouldn't
be cutting bandwidth), since the throttling calculations will be wrong.
His ISP may be able to help with that.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if he set the bandwidth
limits at half his expected rate, and see if the latency is still there or
not.

-Aaron

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm supporting people re: SQM/fq_codel on some of the boards, and came
> across a refractory problem, and I'd like to get some advice.
>
> Summary: A person is using OpenWrt 14.07 (same code base as CeroWrt
> 3.10.50-1) and SQM. Turning on SQM decreases, but doesn't eliminate,
> bufferbloat. They also lose a significant fraction of their bandwidth (from
> ~12-13 mbps down to ~9-10mpbs down, with similar decrease on the upload
> side).
>
> Original report:
> http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f31/bufferbloat-wont-go-away-997842.html
>
> - I have confirmed that it's set up right and that there doesn't seem to
> be any other shaping in play.
>
> - Also, the ISP has confirmed that the tower involved does get overloaded,
> but I'm not sure how that would affect the SQM rates while leaving
> unchanged the unshaped measurements...
>
> What other thoughts/advice could I offer? Thanks!
>
> Rich
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2207 bytes --]