[Bloat] I am unable to pinpoint the source of bufferbloat

[Forums1000 <forums1000@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4478 bytes --]

Firstly, I can confirm uploading to Google Drive saturates my upload (I
checked the outgoing rate in the router) and  also tried Dropbox and got
the same result.

Anyway, performing an upload with Windows 7 and then pinging the remote
router with windows XP, added 50ms to the "unbloated" 20ms roundtrip times.
So the lowest "most represented" RTT numbers I was getting were around
70ms, the worst well over 100ms.
I said "most represented" in the previous sentence, as there was also a
significant delay variance ("jitter") in the RTT's. The RTT's regularly
dived under 70ms, sometimes even hitting an odd 30ms. The was also a large
swing in the other direction with regular ventures to 110-120ms. Needless
to say, the balance of those ventures tilted more towards the higher
numbers.

So Windows 7, being more modern definitely induces more bufferbloat (thanks
to TCP window scaling:)). I'll be repeating this when running Wireshark as
it slipped my mind to fire it up.

As a sidenote to the above:
I still don't see how an AQM-algorithm will combat the buffering in drivers
and hardware (actually, are the issues pertaining to "drivers" and
"hardware' distinct or referring to the same?). I understand that feeding
less packets to a device will prevent the hardware buffer from filling up
as fast as without AQM, but we cannot actually influence its (the HW
buffer) size, can we? If so, it can still introduce a bottleneck that
cannot be prevented...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Forums1000 <forums1000@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Excellent information. So an AQM-algorithm will sort things on the OS
>> level of the router and should make things considerably better. However,
>> from reading around on the matter, it seems drivers for the network device
>> and the hardware itself also contain buffers. Since, Dave (and respect for
>> that) is developing CeroWRT, is there anything that can be done about that?
>> Do we have any idea on how severe the buffering in drivers and hardware is?
>>
>>
> In linux, it's got a lot better in the past 2 years. Work continues.
>
> I have some data on OSX now, and some on windows, but not a lot.
>
> In APs, routers, and switches, it's not looking very good.
>
>
> However I note that the second biggest place we see the issue is on the
> edge home gateways, dslams, cable head-ends, and many of those use software
> rate limiting, which generally has 1 buffer or less native to it, and the
> underlying buffering doesn't matter.
>
> (then on top of the software rate limiters are big fat dumb drop tails
> queues. currently. sigh)
>
>
>
>
>>  A little test I just performed using Windows XP now, indeed shows that
>> Netalyzr is showing me a worst case scenario:
>>
>>
> Meh. Try something with window scaling. Or, try a netanalyzer test from
> some other machine at the same time you do this one.
>
>
>> - a continuous ping (1 ping per second) between 2 routers under my
>> control has an RTT of 20ms (give or take). The remote router I'm pinging
>> sits pretty much idle and has nothing better to do than answering the ping.
>> - uploading a large file to Google drive (thereby saturating my uplink
>> bandwidth) adds +-10ms of additional latency.
>>
>
> I think this is an invalid assumption without actually measuring your
> transfer rate to the the gdrive. It would not surprise me if their TCP was
> pretty sensitive to latency swings, however, they are very on top of the
> bufferbloat issue.
>
> Wouldn't mind a packet capture of that upload while doing the above test.
>
>
>
>>  Sure it varies a bit between 20 and 30ms and goes to 35ms or even 40ms
>> regularly. Moreover, every now and then I get a spike to 70-80ms but that
>> spike never lasts more than 3 pings.
>>
>> All in all considerably lower bloat than the 550ms Netalyzr is
>> indicating. In order to mimic the worst case scenario, I'd have to transfer
>> using UDP then?
>>
>
> Just run a more modern OS....
>
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bloat mailing list
>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Täht
>
> Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt:
> http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5968 bytes --]