[Cake] [Fwd: Re: cake flenter results round 3]

[Georgios Amanakis <gamanakis@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1678 bytes --]

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Georgios Amanakis <gamanakis@gmail.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Cc: Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 3
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 09:45:46 -0500

Another run using the CMTS setup.
ISP limited at 200/10mbit.
Cake/HTB shaping at 180/9mbit.
RTT 20ms with cake's RTT set at 20ms
rrul_be_nflows, 32 download, 8 upload streams.

Cake tested in all flow-isolation modes with all ack filtering options.
HTB tested with codel,pie,fq,sfq,fq_codel.

TCP RTT: 
Using HTB, fq_codel gives better results than codel,pie,fq,sfq.
Cake in triple-isolate no-ack-filtering beats it still. Triple isolate
with ack-filter-aggressive produces slightly better results.

Using the same flow-isolation mode cake produces smaller TCP RTT in the
ack-filter-aggresive mode.


George


On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 10:41 -0800, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 10:30 AM, George Amanakis <gamanakis@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 09:59 -0800, Dave Taht wrote:
> > > 
> > > That's a little discouraging. That's sch_fq, not fq_codel?
> > > (please
> > > add fq_codel)
> > > 
> > 
> > fq is sch_fq. I added fq_codel in the attachments.
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser. both cake normal and flowblind are getting
> their more consistent TCP RTTs at the cost of bandwidth compared to
> codel/fq_codel/pie/etc.
> 
> If there is a way to elide pfifo from your (presumably automatically
> generated) summary plots, they'd be easier to read.
> ( I live and die by the tarballs anyway, but...)
> 
> I didn't manage to get either Xeon to boot last night, I end up with
> a
> blank screen of death...
> 

[-- Attachment #2: tcp_rtt_cake_fqcodel.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 238698 bytes --]