From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-x235.google.com (mail-qc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::235]) (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 0882D21F14C; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:56:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcxr5 with SMTP id r5so9407169qcx.13; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:56:42 -0800 (PST) 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=n030kmxgXeZ7fbXQLvg9pKRwzzPreIY75JW6rAlOIJw=; b=LItNOLbL8ZX4VcPE/cWdzXheopLb7lheW8Wxec0/NfHEXAvjG8SIfU+2HIl+GAl7Ob ac4FfUA23Jp519qI7cm3rDPCjhMxFvK5ZIYsuSEg689GeySdK7FnbLOoO2IN6zvOw0HG iQYDzcahMKHCiP/ide1YdGqYj8c/dFeOgZIwxN6GCckLedh9AsEsKbfEIWWN94B5kRt1 7XJwehcbe54XsNvwawSw5nufux3C5teraMJL9G5v2+P9iZqOxzscJjrWnRGTo+nKQzAK O61APA3xEZKWgpEKOitwhaJPjdWkn1l1gKRATughiRUD5fwR/GVXnU1t38SwaBq1JDiZ Te9w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.234.2 with SMTP id f2mr20259061qhc.63.1424969802356; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:56:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.41.147 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:56:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <54EE6222.5030408@candelatech.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 09:56:42 -0700 Message-ID: From: Stephen John Smoogen To: Jonathan Morton Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113545bce2a650051000a222 Cc: bloat , cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Bloat] Two d-link products tested for bloat... 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, 26 Feb 2015 16:57:12 -0000 --001a113545bce2a650051000a222 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 25 February 2015 at 17:18, Jonathan Morton wrote: > > Here's a comparison plot of box totals: > http://www.candelatech.com/downloads/rtt_fair4be-comparison-box-plot.png > > That's a real mess. All of them utterly fail to get download bandwidth > anywhere near the upload (am I right in assuming it should ideally be about > equal?), and the only ones with even halfway acceptable latency are the > ones with least throughput in either direction. > Possibly. The two issues with wireless is that it is a hub like network and that the system has to figure out a lot of noise (everthing from microwaves, wireless phones to other AP's on the same or nearby frequencies which intefere). Also depending on the antenae setup it is going to be both sending and recieving from the same post which brings in other latencies. Since most traffic is 'streaming' then the hardware is going to be oriented on making download latencies the lowest and upload latencies not as much a problem. If he gets the same profile on the wired side as the wireless side then it is more of an indicator of software/hardware issues which might be fixable. On the wireless side there is a TON of stuff you have to clean out from any tests to make sure the results are 'valid' (to some degree of valid). > - Jonathan Morton > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > > -- Stephen J Smoogen. --001a113545bce2a650051000a222 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 25 February 2015 at 17:18, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.c= om> wrote:

> Here's a comparison plot of box totals:
http://www.candelatech.com/downloads/rtt_fair4b= e-comparison-box-plot.png

That's a real mess. All of them utterly fail to g= et download bandwidth anywhere near the upload (am I right in assuming it s= hould ideally be about equal?), and the only ones with even halfway accepta= ble latency are the ones with least throughput in either direction.


Possibly. The two issues with wireless is that= it is a hub like network and that the system has to figure out a lot of no= ise (everthing from microwaves, wireless phones to other AP's on the sa= me or nearby frequencies which intefere). Also depending on the antenae set= up it is going to be both sending and recieving from the same post which br= ings in other latencies. Since most traffic is 'streaming' then the= hardware is going to be oriented on making download latencies the lowest a= nd upload latencies not as much a problem. If he gets the same profile on t= he wired side as the wireless side then it is more of an indicator of softw= are/hardware issues which might be fixable. On the wireless side there is a= TON of stuff you have to clean out from any tests to make sure the results= are 'valid' (to some degree of valid).

= =C2=A0

- Jonathan Morton


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




--
Stephen J Smoogen.

--001a113545bce2a650051000a222--