From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-x22a.google.com (mail-wr0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::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 93DF53B2A4 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:45:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id 11so24068215wrb.6 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:45:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to; bh=KRSAxqV7yIZ5lNhzWGq/M2MxvCdtIGZsI3KQpntjvUo=; b=Bn0XBKzhniwfKaMtUxY72s/WoVySo0tK6nje9BgDFYMrYQuqIApFeuofrC/xZXpJey NcY0yENg0tvDir5/Bwonk/NshDMRnYKtXamqi0ugGhdgCOxi8Fnlsu9iQCP9fUojRQEW tArKq5nt0Phi6YdInD6tPL7Me1PnGfZyxscrBvLXFgr51v4Wjeklq/I7ttjzyk3YbwT6 O2iT1D8VUDtmhj9VLe6dIbyGrIqkurDNQMK1c9Fkfqhji4ZnTqMz4LIFoeqjwB+X1vZb CTBLqGrGUIaKpMENpS0m6S44ROtd5oSy2IHrWmrMVXpo7vw3zxOafj4v7+yu06EwgJrj 6l6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :references:to:in-reply-to; bh=KRSAxqV7yIZ5lNhzWGq/M2MxvCdtIGZsI3KQpntjvUo=; b=nnK5je6y6KXF7i9h6ufm+fdC93/o2oKIlI4BnJMYqq4XDD85iXq7V9eYtKsd0+GX32 ByH9m75uQFqRoLS3tg8ryEa3zqQl7hqOfbDKgg0SlH23K0oQMFI+LtPkm5W939HjONTs uiPihypmTnPxtYKRAs7KypmtgZiAtnN5oNxAqnjarsYDRwSPlORwi/GLpcU0e4CBrH8y TtM4hHTd6MF02UMmkTPTJiHcLKUbVbMRrToD52BBa3yUh/Ize9gf5zOx0ynSZa23adHH 07ejpji1j1gCNzcSlvUSnXcxUoe4V+wJL8/nKvcQ0q1iGBkjJF6pcRgcdo7a2q01qo0o 3Q9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4qwge6yLxDojPrdDMtDUv/zo6PxgoXdTbwJ0kjajKZ8QiUGvun 50yU3bK9sfhwb3ewDGT0cTqI35tg X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZywpn4oaCYuwrVrqexNhyIXOHZCUZy+bnn1/wzZwfQnxyzny6rmAZrLYEZmLfSIwmblLk3jQ== X-Received: by 10.223.128.4 with SMTP id 4mr36230278wrk.9.1511808343464; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:45:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.72.0.130] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c54sm50113932wra.84.2017.11.27.10.45.42 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:45:42 -0800 (PST) From: Pete Heist Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F1FD4262-72D3-4506-9123-0DFCB5B12D19" Message-Id: <46889DF8-0D83-4729-A7D7-70CE7E599685@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 19:45:41 +0100 References: <85E1A7B2-8AA7-418A-BE43-209A1EC8881A@gmail.com> To: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <85E1A7B2-8AA7-418A-BE43-209A1EC8881A@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1 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: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:45:44 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F1FD4262-72D3-4506-9123-0DFCB5B12D19 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Nov 27, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Pete Heist wrote: >=20 > * 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=E2=80=99s 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." >=20 > = 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/i= ndex.html = I would not be surprised to find out that this result was also due to = lack of CPU, since there=E2=80=99s a steady degradation in Cake=E2=80=99s = performance above 200mbit. Next time I=E2=80=99ll try 8/8 flows in = addition.= --Apple-Mail=_F1FD4262-72D3-4506-9123-0DFCB5B12D19 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
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=E2=80=99s 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_cod= el_900mbit/index.html
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/32flows_eg_cakeet= h_900mbit/index.html

I would not be surprised to find out that = this result was also due to lack of CPU, since there=E2=80=99s a steady = degradation in Cake=E2=80=99s performance above 200mbit. Next time = I=E2=80=99ll try 8/8 flows in addition.
= --Apple-Mail=_F1FD4262-72D3-4506-9123-0DFCB5B12D19--