From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x242.google.com (mail-lf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ADE33B2A4 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:52:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id x1so1368007lff.0 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:52:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QaoF2b+QVy64T3AQFESmIyllYy0Uur5I6EMG8UZ8CKg=; b=jiMlClfZYaBX4lrAcEB74lnGFccQD+/7x6Ogaf85iaufaaUvnr3infY9m8GplqXF2j SB3YGKMtjKGLfbex3M8Bju5PJTICAHJQS+JdXieOsZA5RhGA+9FoD6pJjQmVKdmOYVB4 bmVW/y/blKMIAieTFsvUQ2ZuWxo86jQF60En30rzfj+1bBhlNQbqXYTjD9u7WIXnQCTz wwFyPtXBKacQnpdB+fyKVkAHUmn4OzRr5m87JAYa2mnnNcmKmMnpOtngSyd6jgD7X4ju Cpg1e85LzSucmqrGaae2dp47KT+w9A+l1W7FVuvqiqGIyhMwaN/fbhjlaqA1t7c4gG0w osAg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QaoF2b+QVy64T3AQFESmIyllYy0Uur5I6EMG8UZ8CKg=; b=pdWihUcNV9n2+lqLtqRV4oZ8yPvjSuv2vEEqBoZBr0TYR1DSF+kBnysPObvBehoHVw YUjMxmbj8Us7M2iDVTcgD6lL+GPDoM29FaAczjnliFiLIZG58/W26Ssb3src6hdY6i0p gJL1RdqrS8aKqEbESosRoyQgnPdcwSomPVL1ubW7IWQObWP/d4U/t8mC7KtPts11cfLU E4zEwuzvH6zfY3rX82rz9NIMRJsd/fk8R6W0GDMxj0AqY9omPI9aBYDCcGyrctE3o/hJ isCPoC+bdT1ADfrxVt2mTu8veY6PCaqIS2JPpDHnVn23j3DLZE0lCFcDS7Zom4y4iJwd cMGg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lcDLCCACo65cyezYx06fVooHhe1Kya5dw26yN4haV8FDGHnvp1t9epvyMUcy/TNQ== X-Received: by 10.25.137.193 with SMTP id l184mr1647288lfd.31.1486673568284; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:52:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.100.16] (37-219-206-78.nat.bb.dnainternet.fi. [37.219.206.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b7sm3879331lfe.33.2017.02.09.12.52.47 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:52:47 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <459B9F17-317F-465E-8D2F-361CF47E5F32@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 22:52:46 +0200 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3D9E1A43-0182-4A1F-8262-6F587A79254E@gmail.com> References: <459B9F17-317F-465E-8D2F-361CF47E5F32@gmail.com> To: Pete Heist X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] Cake latency update X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 20:52:49 -0000 > On 9 Feb, 2017, at 18:36, Pete Heist wrote: >=20 > I=E2=80=99m seeing good latency results for Cake at lower MCS levels = (graphs below), in case that wasn=E2=80=99t already known. Yes - despite its complexity, Cake has always performed well on latency = in comparison to other qdiscs. I gather this time you=E2=80=99re comparing it against the mac80211 = fq_codel, rather than a conventional qdisc stack? - Jonathan Morton