Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

[Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1210 bytes --]


> On Nov 27, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> * And then above 200mbit, fq_codel performs considerably better than cake at the 32/32 flow tests. At 900mbit, UDP/ping is 1.1ms for fq_codel and 10ms for cake. TCP RTT is ~6.5ms for fq_codel and ~12ms for cake. Dave’s earlier explanation probably applies here: "Since fq_codel supports superpackets and cake peels them, we have a cpu and latency hit that originates from that. Also the code derived algorithm in cake differs quite significantly from mainline codel, and my principal gripe about it has been that it has not been extensively tested against higher delays."
> 
> http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/32flows_eg_fq_codel_900mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/32flows_eg_fq_codel_900mbit/index.html>
> http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/32flows_eg_cakeeth_900mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/32flows_eg_cakeeth_900mbit/index.html>
I would not be surprised to find out that this result was also due to lack of CPU, since there’s a steady degradation in Cake’s performance above 200mbit. Next time I’ll try 8/8 flows in addition.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1897 bytes --]