Cake - FQ_codel the next generation
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Furniss <adf.lists@gmail.com>
To: xnor <xnoreq@gmail.com>, David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Cc: Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cake] cake default target is too low for bbr?
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:52:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ca09d5c-e674-110a-72e4-b8fd434c7a5d@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <85386ca9-f0be-f60f-796a-e5aa3b8ee212@gmail.com>

Andy Furniss wrote:

>> b) it reacts to increase in RTT. An experiment with 10 Mbps
>> bottleneck, 40 ms RTT and a typical 1000 packet buffer, increase in
>> RTT with BBR is ~3 ms while with cubic it is over 1000 ms.
> 
> That is a nice aspect (though at 60mbit hfsc + 80ms bfifo I tested with
> 5 tcps it was IIRC 20ms vs 80 for cubic). I deliberately test using ifb
> on my PC because I want to pretend to be a router - IME (OK it was a
> while ago) testing on eth directly gives different results - like the
> locally generated tcp is backing off and giving different results.

I retested this with 40ms latency (netem) with hfsc + 1000 pfifo on ifb.

5 tcps netperf bbr =

64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=40.611 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=162.566 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=163.854 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=143.220 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=139.458 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=139.466 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=139.570 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=139.876 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=139.592 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=139.580 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=139.458 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=40.625 ms

Of course cubic was totally horrible -

64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=40.605 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=209.066 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=261.172 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=316.063 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=363.004 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=417.586 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=569.068 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=784.740 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=1064.652 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=1204.801 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=973.802 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=155.116 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=40.414 ms

With hfsc on root of eth both cubic and bbr were the same -

64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=40.619 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=52.775 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=53.217 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=52.742 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=53.176 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=53.179 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=53.027 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=53.179 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=52.623 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=53.383 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=52.906 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=40.600 ms

So tcp was getting push back = unrepresentative result if you
want to test as if a queue on a remote router.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-28 23:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <mailman.435.1493406198.3609.cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
2017-04-28 21:11 ` xnor
2017-04-28 21:29   ` David Lang
2017-04-28 21:54     ` Andy Furniss
2017-04-28 22:02     ` xnor
2017-04-28 22:26       ` Andy Furniss
2017-04-28 23:52         ` Andy Furniss [this message]
2017-04-28 23:54           ` Andy Furniss
2017-05-03  9:50           ` Andy Furniss
2017-05-04  2:13             ` Jim Gettys
2017-05-04 10:22               ` Andy Furniss
2017-05-04 17:40                 ` Jim Gettys
2017-05-08 10:37                   ` Andy Furniss
2017-04-29  4:32         ` Jonathan Morton
2017-04-29 10:31           ` Andy Furniss
2017-04-28 19:03 Andy Furniss
2017-04-28 20:45 ` [Cake] " Andy Furniss

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cake.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5ca09d5c-e674-110a-72e4-b8fd434c7a5d@gmail.com \
    --to=adf.lists@gmail.com \
    --cc=Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    --cc=david@lang.hm \
    --cc=xnoreq@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox