From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E390F21F571 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.61.0.155] ([107.171.60.150]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LrNIC-1aXSje1I2m-013ASw; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 21:58:50 +0200 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <562510CA.1030709@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> References: <9717A3D5-6BF8-4454-A664-AAE4D276C942@gmx.de> <562510CA.1030709@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Sebastian Moeller Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:58:25 -0500 To: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant , cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: <06BC7A29-BEBE-4DD4-A05E-B246F7F39757@gmx.de> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:GdvofOIWf/vc2NAdyj2BwJPGeouRMR8zUlpsNEIl7Sh1or8iByw JAiZRLPT5t7Qd5AguoWHEf86U/XmbGLUP5f0PJFTppZQ6eAO16g/14PJp3n2CP7D+TN6tih MdA1a5enbkLxu90txsPYGp6h1vj7mrMA2kL7lTztuqtj8mOJ4wOA4KkHeSmwFzWhAVD5lzT OhJg1QNtR+N9nZx+19Wmg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:bPOD3ePGLyw=:kodw1sRgs+zJpBE8RCsN+X ZVyTn2bSPENSoTwCK1nx8x7WLnYjva8vmYHwHlv0CAgTJzN0+V/Vw5VagNGhsFHR+/SFEB90R mwtfksHqsPqTxaiC96wadKzBvwJ15jDxsKVSwPJdO/JPAXaLQg6T1Nhbn365zHKVCxKLW2IkI xMuIx6fjhdvzXMvjxs8kOt1PAiQikxuQF2HbkSGKfafFCptSseJJLGdO2dHf85IWF5nctzGj1 5kds+dg6RAfm7gCuvgb7SS8eSbFsCOXOMNHlLvriVfuHTH+EM9rPfww4qKzO6+s08so7xjHaM PnZ73z0qf8T/H2l+4JGZHy2k/xmr8SVHuYmuPQoVLrS8CyTAfrLJfuavm9kVvjzrLyvXeUTIM y7vazvOkOpmZhHqPwh2dJb1yb4X3o4R5+3bhW+Y7epjX3qMSE1ghdzbfAbCgHINw3x71eW0rZ zBT/7218AJdPC4JQfj6da36BPlryKMjKoCowd+58rh3RGGP+soBi/ClNOrmiA5ftcsplHdcnB TD37y1LM5bkNz1fw7cdHwmOSZ4MEABa0IGfAevBCosaLP9OcqlianWsh/R1r0LJzDbcKH5hUy IxjdyM5M3NypgaWRVdqfFL7+UzaJTp4Bo207tc0cp0ylvataQ/sFC4N7BDojkptybVzESOagD 17cVLN1H1cJhATovS77qfvRGefTfSxr/Gp8FsoxK38/3bcqACYx6A2AA8JRbFHw67bdRZ4H3c p8vuzUrrC8CpRV3k2cWvBFimZg+7ViYlIwKlZXRL8ivvh5szdI990ZJGwJWYIRhqMziNkIspa sueSPgU Subject: Re: [Cake] Cake over satellite X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:59:16 -0000 Hi Kevin, On October 19, 2015 10:48:26 AM CDT, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote: > > >On 19/10/15 16:15, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >> Hi Noven, >> >> >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 09:55 , Noven Purnell-Webb > wrote: >> >>> I'm about to go on a mission to the outback, with one objective >being to tune a disappointing satellite link=2E Theoretically 6/1mbps, >with RTTs ranging from 700 - 1200ms=2E From the cake technical page=20 >>> "The AQM layer has no configuration options=2E However, it is planned >to add simple tuning options for different prevailing RTTs that may be >significantly different from the Internet-scale 100ms currently >assumed=2E Satellite links tend to impose longer RTTs, and enclosed LANs >tend to have much shorter RTTs=2E" Does this imply cake is not yet ready >for use on satellite links? Or merely that I'll get sub-optimal results >but it's still worth testing?=20 >>> I see I could set the interval in sch_cake=2Ec and recompile - is >there any reason why this would be a bad idea? Am I right in thinking >with such observed variation I'll get better results setting for the >lower limit (700) rather than the upper (1200)? >>> Any suggestions for a more sane target to set while I'm doing this? >>> Has anyone here already done testing on satellite links? >> I believe that interval/rtt is now settable via tc, BUT target is >clamped to a max of 5ms, while in theory it should be 5-10% of rtt, so >current cake might work well out of the box, or might require fiddling >with target=2E It would be most excellent if you could actually test that >aspect of cake for us ;) >hi Noven, > > >The interval value is exposed as an rtt parameter, either as a time >(say >700ms) or as some hopefully relevant pre-set keywords, may I suggest >'satellite' is suitable in your case (1000ms) The target value is not >directly available from tc, however an API interface for it does exist >(like interval alias rtt and other parameters) Target max is 5ms, >except for 'slow' links where a calculation using the time for an MTU >sized packet + overhead is used (there's little point in trying to >control latency to 5ms when it takes longer than that to actually send >the bytes out), other than that target is set to 5% of rtt=2E Since target max is clamped to 5ms, you effectively only get the 5%= setting for rtt=2E/interval below 100 ms=2E Which might or might not be co= rrect for a long latency satellite link=2E All I want to emphasize is that = somebody should test this ;)=2E=2E=2E Best Regards Sebastian > >Tell it the link bandwidth, any overhead bytes (PPP, ether-FCS, VLan >and >the like) and the rtt 1000ms and she'll be right mate ;-) > >Kevin > >> >> Best Regards >> Sebastian >> >>> - Noven >>> >>> --=20 >>> - Noven Purnell-Webb >>> Creative Technology Consultant >>> +61 448 841 091 >>> http://onecardme=2Ecom/NovenPWebb >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cake mailing list >>> Cake@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >>> https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/cake >> _______________________________________________ >> Cake mailing list >> Cake@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >> https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/cake > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Cake mailing list >Cake@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/cake --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E