From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64CFC3B29D for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 01:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id AC554B1; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 07:50:40 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1611471040; bh=FNs6HbvfN3gvqgdpUhOXXp05v3i4n8tap5il5XrbxkI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=0gA5z6yyPxGvno14onxFsYnd3H3c8bMcB2bGUNqJZfyZOWamgHGsmMnoWG6C5tStB drLENoYKVOspFIFt5aXazLTLU9PbVgPBiktLEy4uvfkS3mWGxejJVtYWarcdQbR3WV vzlINl/uCyS7rqs0ebQPgyTMmNL52wOK+Pj4DfKU= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9589B0; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 07:50:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 07:50:40 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Stuart Cheshire cc: bloat In-Reply-To: <932357EB-614C-4F74-925C-A1D6FB5F3AD2@apple.com> Message-ID: References: <932357EB-614C-4F74-925C-A1D6FB5F3AD2@apple.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-137064504-2022818484-1611471040=:28714" Subject: Re: [Bloat] UniFi Dream Machine Pro X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 06:50:42 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---137064504-2022818484-1611471040=:28714 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, Stuart Cheshire via Bloat wrote: > Is implementing CoDel queueing really 10x more burden than running > “Ubiquiti’s proprietary Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) engine”? Is CoDel > 4x more burden than Ubiquiti’s IDS (Intrusion Detection System) and IPS > (Intrusion Prevention System)? No, it isn't but all the other functions have hw offloads and the CoDel numbers shown are when you turn hw offloads off, basically only running it in CPU forwarding mode. That's when you get those kinds of numbers (~800 megabit/s). When enabling SQM on their USG3 you get ~100 megabit/s of throughput, because it has a very slow CPU (but has plenty of offloads, so full gig with offloads enabled works well, but then you don't get any SQM/DPI). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se ---137064504-2022818484-1611471040=:28714--