From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com (mail-lb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::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 0B8C121F7FD for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 22:49:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by lbbkw15 with SMTP id kw15so65091230lbb.0 for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 22:49:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=t5vBW9bgNHXfQAgLb+ZoUwYvsSsqJj4+4gqovGbKJzk=; b=ng5xLW/Z47HAec26zQ/RwknnSNkNnqcFCrdPwRWzWXpvVx4GrucZapg86tUtdJ/1UG q7mXg35bYZdPH1Zu4VwydoiD7glOMLsxt9Gva+tPkQbms989t2G6yu+xjp4yDzNsoDWG Lw9eUXoFa1WhLi0YT6gG6R7rYrq/U+x7+0ICUi0wpaLtbRGcX00Bn3xDDb/E6Bn8lQ4h Dd7GMmTbqfoqBdETQ1OKg8I+oXwMXSyLv8RUXXb14wkWTxK3Jef7uaheQzkoAupEqrpk +2d7LrJXia+aA7M6IQ4AYvTvLA3SPMnJ0eTD6riqm4cPD1SjBPWhrVGCIr9+KKp4Ip8s w3cg== X-Received: by 10.112.63.100 with SMTP id f4mr6584124lbs.85.1446878959160; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 22:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (83-245-237-101-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.237.101]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o197sm624051lfb.7.2015.11.06.22.49.15 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Nov 2015 22:49:18 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 08:49:08 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <136640C5-58AD-4633-8021-6FAC374428B5@gmail.com> References: <87pozspckj.fsf@toke.dk> <6A2609D9-7747-487B-9484-ECC69C50DE96@gmx.de> <874mh3pai9.fsf@toke.dk> <50C2A7B7-1B81-41E1-B534-CA449296FE77@gmail.com> <87ziysldij.fsf@toke.dk> <87vb9fl7ec.fsf@toke.dk> <87611fkyd7.fsf@toke.dk> <340E3F23-2F9C-449F-ACA7-86031FBE3B31@gmail.com> To: Dave Taht X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5) Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cake] Long-RTT broken again 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: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 06:49:44 -0000 > On 7 Nov, 2015, at 07:16, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 > I note that truesize is a bad indicator for tests on the rx path where > acks are usually 2k. At least in my test setup, cake is on the egress side, so I would hope = that doesn=E2=80=99t come into it. I=E2=80=99m putting netem on the = ingress side and giving it a limit of 102400 packets, which hopefully is = never hit: cake bandwidth 100Mbit satellite -> GigE -> netem delay 500ms = limit 102400 netem delay 500ms limit 102400 <- GigE <- cake bandwidth = 100Mbit satellite With that setup, I=E2=80=99m seeing very poor throughput with CUBIC = (less than 10Mbit) but much better with Westwood+ (about 50Mbit) - of = course that=E2=80=99s the opposite of the theoretical result. Next = I=E2=80=99ll try increasing cake=E2=80=99s memory limit. Both machines = are desktop-class (with 1GB and 16Gb RAM), so that won=E2=80=99t be a = problem for experimenting. - Jonathan Morton