From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (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 00A193B2A3 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 07:21:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id r141so46829770wmg.1 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:21:47 -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:message-id:references :to; bh=8HcQ4pQWnaqVOFmHMDdPFOrU+kfxKCBxDIcG2YCKYvw=; b=c2+7zR6xV1QAcRkr0bEWJZYBmgNAdZBUz5P5VmzdbblvSH3bq55DEJthXL+xWg+AKq 9WkGXVvBMdH81XjUfEgl5qTcvqoksJzTH9tt3iHt+HMjtfEFg1e62xAKyei5Hr+ctSmv ts/TmcfH/gqaRspv3fThQT/L6/sezDm7N0gfReAg2CMN+y/I8mjhUk5vopEYVh8Trvf1 P+fVIYSOMqS9jD6RFBwZMMoGZ/XDdmS/UBtUFORyeYklOkvszunbdS8Zf0I75iXoYp+G tYCbhzxXaP40TnDXpwULowDo7euJF4NYpKv8syAgRQBNoVkeswUAwntAcliSYp8HtXoc C7Ug== 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 :message-id:references:to; bh=8HcQ4pQWnaqVOFmHMDdPFOrU+kfxKCBxDIcG2YCKYvw=; b=mu3A68H4fCoA/F2eC8bpvIrGu2tz8SC1eQl4NMB08Kw51qdSKkx5I3vNh6zGFz2FXD BQGLg/jf1Ok+rQ7pGsmm6pjLGTZdY6SPnD0/3Zo3OMDXGQwDc/Tvbbr8dLKQ2b5JPIb6 nGOyezKKqA88oZeaOYLj4zBDVojzUQ8Pf4vzkqwiCxQs6A665smCggZ7vpxctmszCEuJ Qw6BvhdbolyXbGZkE/Vj0c05ai9N+QBjI6YDX0g9Bhb9DbIsYAuO7XTF5+EFfkV0fFHF ynzoBrssRAaMduRVo0HGSHdKPM62Xp0q9uA+mR37IPe3/4melBE4U3NpyMpGMWHvwFmM Th5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kWEDHK9wJCT3MMHfMaaatR/23vD7l6c1+zWFy+0MK0xV2Rp2iteGdd5Q31y5X0qQ== X-Received: by 10.28.6.78 with SMTP id 75mr7811693wmg.81.1486729306759; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:21:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.72.0.34] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d29sm1358562wmi.19.2017.02.10.04.21.45 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 04:21:45 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8030C875-94C4-43CA-9642-2B89E5322BE7" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Pete Heist In-Reply-To: <70520D3D-D381-44DC-A789-BB1E24FBE3F4@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:21:49 +0100 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-Id: <531AF998-D1B2-43A6-A55B-F0471C0164E1@gmail.com> References: <459B9F17-317F-465E-8D2F-361CF47E5F32@gmail.com> <3D9E1A43-0182-4A1F-8262-6F587A79254E@gmail.com> <830143EE-20F2-42A5-A4FC-ECE7DF50C632@gmail.com> <652AA7A2-60C5-460F-AE60-CF4CB1D1D781@gmail.com> <5BE2A225-4B9C-4F0F-ACC5-C23CCC873DF5@gmail.com> <4B18C549-4CEF-4275-B9B3-CB8A046EB4EC@gmail.com> <856BB65A-569E-4633-B104-5E3BD15B649F@gmail.com> <70520D3D-D381-44DC-A789-BB1E24FBE3F4@gmx.de> To: Jonathan Morton , Sebastian Moeller 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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:21:48 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8030C875-94C4-43CA-9642-2B89E5322BE7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Feb 10, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Sebastian Moeller = wrote: >=20 > Hi Pete, >=20 >> On Feb 10, 2017, at 12:08, Pete Heist wrote: >>=20 >> Not a problem. I=E2=80=99ll run a spread of Cake and fq_codel over = Ethernet at various bandwidths. It will be through their Apple USB = Ethernet adapters (used now for management), which are also connected = through a switch, but I think that setup should be fine for this = purpose. Should be done in a hour or so and we=E2=80=99ll see=E2=80=A6 >=20 > I believe the Apple USB dongles are fastEthernet only, at least = the USB2 types I have available here, which for your tested bandwidth = would work, but it will not allow you test at what shaper rate things go = pear shaped=E2=80=A6 Also it wifi creates a bit more CPU load than wired = ethernet, it _might_ make sense to concurrently excercise the WIFI cards = just to re-create the SIRQ load (but probably not as the first = experiment ;) ). >=20 > Best Regards > Sebastian=20 Hi Sebastian, yes, they=E2=80=99re only 100 Mbit, but that=E2=80=99s = enough to cover the rates where I was seeing the problem with Wi-Fi. = Also in my test setup there are four nodes connected as described under = Configuration #1: http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/wifi_bufferbloat.html = I=E2=80=99m running Cake on =E2=80=98mini=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98mbp=E2=80=99= , and the Wi-Fi radios are only on =E2=80=98om1=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98om2=E2= =80=99, so the CPU load shouldn=E2=80=99t be different for mini and mbp = when connected directly via Ethernet, instead of via Ethernet and a = Wi-Fi link, I suppose. I think we just wanted to see if the throughput shifting would reproduce = over Ethernet at the same rates, but so far it didn=E2=80=99t for me, = although there are other anomalies that don=E2=80=99t look like the = throughput shifts I sent before (there=E2=80=99s a throughput anomaly = for Cake 20Mbit and latency anomalies for fq_codel 60Mbit and 90Mbit): http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_10mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_20mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_30mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_40mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_50mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_60mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_70mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_75mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_80mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_85mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_90mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_100mbit/index.html = fq_codel: http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_10mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_20mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_30mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_40mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_50mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_60mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_70mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_75mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_80mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_85mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_90mbit/index.html = http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_100mbit/index.html = So that suggests that the throughput shifting problem may also be = somehow related to Wi-Fi. I=E2=80=99m still going to be testing Chaos = Calmer, as well as two Ubiquiti NanoStation M5=E2=80=99s, though this = will take some more time. We might learn some more from this, or if you = can reproduce it with ath9k hardware that would be good too... Thanks, Pete --Apple-Mail=_8030C875-94C4-43CA-9642-2B89E5322BE7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Feb 10, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> = wrote:

Hi Pete,

On Feb = 10, 2017, at 12:08, Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com> wrote:

Not a problem. I=E2=80=99ll run a spread of Cake and fq_codel = over Ethernet at various bandwidths. It will be through their Apple USB = Ethernet adapters (used now for management), which are also connected = through a switch, but I think that setup should be fine for this = purpose. Should be done in a hour or so and we=E2=80=99ll see=E2=80=A6

I believe the Apple USB dongles are fastEthernet = only, at least the USB2 types I have available here, which for your = tested bandwidth would work, but it will not allow you test at what = shaper rate things go pear shaped=E2=80=A6 Also it wifi creates a bit = more CPU load than wired ethernet, it _might_ make sense to concurrently = excercise the WIFI cards just to re-create the SIRQ load (but probably = not as the first experiment ;) ).

Best Regards
= Sebastian 

Hi Sebastian, yes, they=E2=80=99re only 100 = Mbit, but that=E2=80=99s enough to cover the rates where I was seeing = the problem with Wi-Fi. Also in my test setup there are four nodes = connected as described under Configuration #1:

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/wifi_bufferbloat.html

I=E2=80=99m = running Cake on =E2=80=98mini=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98mbp=E2=80=99, and = the Wi-Fi radios are only on =E2=80=98om1=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98om2=E2=80=99= , so the CPU load shouldn=E2=80=99t be different for mini and mbp when = connected directly via Ethernet, instead of via Ethernet and a Wi-Fi = link, I suppose.

I think we just wanted to see if the throughput shifting = would reproduce over Ethernet at the same rates, but so far it didn=E2=80=99= t for me, although there are other anomalies that don=E2=80=99t look = like the throughput shifts I sent before (there=E2=80=99s a throughput = anomaly for Cake 20Mbit and latency anomalies for fq_codel 60Mbit and = 90Mbit):

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_10mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_20mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_30mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_40mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_50mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_60mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_70mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_75mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_80mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_85mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_90mbit/index.html=

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth_100mbit/index.htm= l

fq_codel:

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_10mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_20mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_30mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_40mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_50mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_60mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_70mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_75mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_80mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_85mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_90mbit/index.= html

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_hd-eth_100mbit/index= .html

So = that suggests that the throughput shifting problem may also be somehow = related to Wi-Fi. I=E2=80=99m still going to be testing Chaos Calmer, as = well as two Ubiquiti NanoStation M5=E2=80=99s, though this will take = some more time. We might learn some more from this, or if you can = reproduce it with ath9k hardware that would be good too...

Thanks,
Pete

= --Apple-Mail=_8030C875-94C4-43CA-9642-2B89E5322BE7--