From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (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 B64C23B2A4 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id h125so29939553lfe.0 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:06:07 -0700 (PDT) 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=7YtNXfbgG21XKP2IHtvBAhbXkiYScM6JFCMXfymURYU=; b=nJHjxVrNCoRBT3iWLrGb0JhUnrAMN+F8Pvro+vadBQ/c71WpPqmXOMgeCbFQLeKWyW oFwWWf0COZnezbD49R008V0comQRrR9c5uuWXe/PkmSXFIRaKaKixdY4LtM6sgB8AOs1 pvabEKwbPx/Tc55dWGna3euCE3tavb4RPw5eX0apwJiVED3/MS9WA3vB+pZoQ4NVQHH9 XM3Duw6w9ASdRVh88abC/XrL7XNDfU83PejWMjlie2wqm875yH8LB4m2zGs4z6Gz//vJ w4okYxiSwc0zLK8B3nqxqeZqvdYZyN5K1nn1gMQDaYCC98Y7UOm+2HdvcrRNpIwIRqt/ 1HOA== 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=7YtNXfbgG21XKP2IHtvBAhbXkiYScM6JFCMXfymURYU=; b=LxQafEp0zB2rVLuoku0Ra9B/aaChiQg8Qvgv5BPNxqttQ1we7AzBmyydF9agb/gDyQ DsS7igEoX3SuqghsFDj04R92Q11odmbSD4YfncMA5H6l5ZPfg7IErznKeJPUYGdYjCwz jfLmJ2p04h2Yl4GrH59Y/EX+0pe0cPwFgu56zft5lgnlImUgTQKX1a+Cs/iMFRq3JRVw 8B2YmOaZyqLa6HD2m+0ZohhcJTtry4qLyBWEF7k29cAd/lZusMpBQYYYmoJI8ZBv1iwz NMOxO2juGHz3hUv31ddCxWn3oHYY0LMBuVwzlIEalXeAo+LLl2Rd7jYamJwz3nyZ3vcI Exzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1IsSQ1gDaqsI2lLH2u0Q727ST1Pp9H1gOj3hbKyY5nHFoDQtN/FT+HzasRfI9cAA== X-Received: by 10.25.28.137 with SMTP id c131mr12684824lfc.109.1491498366591; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.14] (37-219-158-10.nat.bb.dnainternet.fi. [37.219.158.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v30sm458942ljd.65.2017.04.06.10.06.05 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:06:04 +0300 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3FFFF4B7-6DF7-4F7B-8F2D-5E22E27769FB@gmail.com> References: To: "Luis E. Garcia" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] A quick question about FQ_CoDel vs Cake 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, 06 Apr 2017 17:06:08 -0000 > On 6 Apr, 2017, at 16:51, Luis E. Garcia wrote: >=20 > I've been doing some testing of Cake on LEDE (WD MyNet 750) and on = EdgeOS (Ubiquity ERPoe). One big question that I have is why does Cake = have a higher/better average throughput than FQ_CoDel? The graph seems a = bit smoother through the speed test. >=20 > The test are against a 10down/2up Mbps connection from a local = provider. The main difference that=E2=80=99s probably responsible for this is = Cake=E2=80=99s integrated deficit-mode shaper, which is more accurate on = short timescales than the more typical token-bucket shaper that fq_codel = is used with. There=E2=80=99s also some difference in the Codel implementation which = might or might not be relevant, specifically in the calculation of = =E2=80=9Ccount=E2=80=9D after a relatively brief exit from dropping = state. - Jonathan Morton