From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) (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 4626B21F6F1; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id rl12so2994202iec.25 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:57:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=qZS57hg/+guPpbp4rlURfnMmhohOAy2gDJxYVLCmZc0=; b=bnzzHI5rawJau6vnQd0s+VMXvE4UmEPNzHMfEEFS261s+kyu3lPMsx3o3GxR+me9gk ijeer43N6pdmeQgOhhJvL1U/Aw2illTwslCCbyzzeVz+rijYDEMzt1A2r8QoGFDHUMWU 9TEmJJWC3yff7BkcJg8Srlrkf8uZwJ+GpnFspZB45MEVt3s/6JE1YQHmnA3lbZs/ylZV rgcIFjGoZuG7J6CLLvSjH31qWGGf+tfUJ2lrdfXTaoH+uYKC52trDJrVYZwBYs58uLPa hvd4kxNOwR/1v1QSGgAmqx9rvGBOmvlGuToN9t7W1UuEAJ/Wg0Anviw9K+m86cLMUmf6 fguQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.136.134 with SMTP id ik6mr12378715icc.6.1409331446433; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.243.196 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:57:26 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Wood To: bloat , cerowrt-devel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c21a383c4e9c0501c78c69 Subject: [Bloat] Comcast upped service levels -> WNDR3800 can't cope... 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: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:57:27 -0000 --001a11c21a383c4e9c0501c78c69 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Comcast has upped the download rates in my area, from 50Mbps to 100Mbps. This morning I tried to find the limit of the WNDR3800. And I found it. 50Mbps is still well within capabilities, 100Mbps isn't. And as I've seen Dave say previously, it's right around 80Mbps total (download + upload). http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-comcast-speeds-new-cerowrt-sqm.html I tried disabling downstream shaping to see what the result was, and it wasn't pretty. I also tried using the "simplest.qos" script, and that didn't really gain me anything, so I went back to the simple.qos script (those results aren't included above). It looks like it's definitely time for a new router platform (for me). Or, we need to find a way to implement the system such that it doesn't max out a 680MHz mips core just to push 100Mbps of data. That's roughly 10K cpu cycles per packet, which seems like an awful lot. Unless the other problem is that the memory bus just can't keep up. My experience of a lot of these processors is that the low-level offload engines have great DMA capabilities for "wire-speed" operation, but that the processor core itself can't move data to save it's life. What's the limit of the EdgeRouter Lite? Or should I start looking for something like this: http://www.gateworks.com/product/item/ventana-gw5310-network-processor (although that's an expensive board, given the very low production volume, for the same cost I could probably build a small passively-cooled mini/micro-atx setup running x86 and dual NICs). -Aaron --001a11c21a383c4e9c0501c78c69 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Comcast has upped the download rates in my area, from 50Mb= ps to 100Mbps. =C2=A0This morning I tried to find the limit of the WNDR3800= . =C2=A0And I found it. =C2=A050Mbps is still well within capabilities, 100= Mbps isn't.

And as I've seen Dave say previously, it's right aro= und 80Mbps total (download + upload).


I tried disabling downstream shaping to see what = the result was, and it wasn't pretty. =C2=A0I also tried using the &quo= t;simplest.qos" script, and that didn't really gain me anything, s= o I went back to the simple.qos script (those results aren't included a= bove).

It looks like it's definitely time for a new router= platform (for me).

Or, we need to find a way to i= mplement the system such that it doesn't max out a 680MHz mips core jus= t to push 100Mbps of data. =C2=A0That's roughly 10K cpu cycles per pack= et, which seems like an awful lot. =C2=A0Unless the other problem is that t= he memory bus just can't keep up. =C2=A0My experience of a lot of these= processors is that the low-level offload engines have great DMA capabiliti= es for "wire-speed" operation, but that the processor core itself= can't move data to save it's life.

What's the limit of the EdgeRouter Lite?
=
Or should I start looking for something like this:


(although that's an expensive board, given th= e very low production volume, for the same cost I could probably build a sm= all passively-cooled mini/micro-atx setup running x86 and dual NICs).

-Aaron
--001a11c21a383c4e9c0501c78c69--