From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) (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 D8E5921F5B4 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qczw4 with SMTP id w4so24090574qcz.2 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:32:42 -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 :cc:content-type; bh=ISe4CNdATce5FKLW/AGU4JR2X058ayM2VMFpKnB15TQ=; b=Q5KSyO3S8X7qxqpFVaXjpo/bvDLC96DlcF+v1yeFGY/ZqGNPMI+MKHm6JS9IIP2wbx NBPdq0XhK21nY2+iQFBnXiMRoZtEvmoLt6o/y+fQ0WK6q568xpTOGir05+YCIBLJzMWw JyKHYN9g7wIhRcmADpgeJFe8JTKE3RVjUiuxr1Nl/Qd4YfrNsUWUV9MPwuYDSVD94qp8 pBqH1sILVFDKFQB6TYcq5d83Tz2qVQr2ybQlMWm8tKM8/GpGhZHbBlNuAzWI7+ciluAc s+ryJda2py+bUPDMMkDzgepE/9F3vRKfFD9LGjSUceNV51cFYYylgMvpygxZYRBnSLnQ DKyQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.132.17 with SMTP id 17mr719716qhe.36.1433460762561; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 16:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.187.71 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:32:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7D4DDC3F-9233-4E07-B59B-AA1368CA9D4E@gmail.com> References: <7D4DDC3F-9233-4E07-B59B-AA1368CA9D4E@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:32:42 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Wood To: Rich Brown Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c07c728d543a0517b997ce Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] Bloat goes away, but with ~25% speed loss? 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, 04 Jun 2015 23:33:12 -0000 --001a11c07c728d543a0517b997ce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 > --001a11c07c728d543a0517b997ce Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What about the link type?=C2=A0 If there are extra overhea= ds going on, that's going to muck with the calculations (possibly addin= g latency, but shouldn't be cutting bandwidth), since the throttling ca= lculations will be wrong.=C2=A0 His ISP may be able to help with that.
=
It would be interesting to see what would happen if he set t= he bandwidth limits at half his expected rate, and see if the latency is st= ill 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 g= et 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, bufferblo= at. They also lose a significant fraction of their bandwidth (from ~12-13 m= bps down to ~9-10mpbs down, with similar decrease on the upload side).

Original report: http://www.techsupportf= orum.com/forums/f31/bufferbloat-wont-go-away-997842.html

- I have confirmed that it's set up right and that there doesn't se= em 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 unch= anged the unshaped measurements...

What other thoughts/advice could I offer? Thanks!

Rich
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

--001a11c07c728d543a0517b997ce--