From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ee0-f42.google.com (mail-ee0-f42.google.com [74.125.83.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A53E202102 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:07:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ee0-f42.google.com with SMTP id b47so2522996eek.15 for ; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 14:07:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=IuZcuhu2boDOe3cSS3fg971SUCwj1/wXgyzaZ9m2oOY=; b=zwPFoqjM8OlvxFnnPs5h9UICo1LGgxZsmmX4ZwcT0JZt0Tze61TOCVrgPZuCGfr1yu 6Mhpri4R3Fn0wrrV29uZLYU7I+XaR+nIaKwohlTsp5nTjMBtLrwDlfnscTN/mw1A4FM+ 0nwiw1wd4miI9vFYw1tyebWXwtH3bKp+p1ZDP6neTKdL8KPfW9BehWJJJp07nObhDjl2 zF/v1q734iHsbaNxRTGbHslm6+ReEArDpIuNfYMxeTP9LKIDGjbD+tWTJEOV1n4DZMPD L3zOX8m/hj8tAxBOfp469NX285s0+Pm7jgEFIxYUudO9IFDT49200dnjOVZa2RHlAo7o agNQ== X-Received: by 10.14.215.131 with SMTP id e3mr31704338eep.32.1360447623362; Sat, 09 Feb 2013 14:07:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jeroen.balduyck@gmail.com Received: by 10.14.209.193 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:06:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Forums1000 Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 23:06:33 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: NoasiIsIdbW5Vccl_b2L5uMyug8 Message-ID: To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b621a645376e504d551e5b6 Subject: [Bloat] I am unable to pinpoint the source of bufferbloat 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: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:07:06 -0000 --047d7b621a645376e504d551e5b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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? A little test I just performed using Windows XP now, indeed shows that Netalyzr is showing me a worst case scenario: - 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. 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? --047d7b621a645376e504d551e5b6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 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?

A little test I just performed using Windows XP now, indeed shows that Netalyzr is showing me a worst case scenario:

- 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. 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? --047d7b621a645376e504d551e5b6--