From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (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 B16E13B2A4 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 15:24:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x63so24270767wmf.2 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 12:24:33 -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=F7kUWp35L6c4VOX9qJHQYF3Wg++dYrNlG3NNs0/5wW4=; b=sr40y7y4Gez5Ypx9eJ9NSLmz/52FE5x/tw21ph7oz/3ofFF64ObsmbRVVVEs9wZk8J k59zBe+c5J+a21IKnEEJ/Eee9L5OHqG3P6Nu40bNlPUFZvZbzS8ZQ/oqGczGu8pneVxp mTHwRt1A/miIR2yoKVzk69Fg0uJMhsULW9QJcFs4Hx2sAH9u6s+7V7f8s2B4omI6tr57 TrUuu8f5EBN0jcRv+w70ZM3lRxCugryUz+IWh4QWRuUx+3NfJl8N2GVvy8lDpN9+mqYr HmWSC/jGJN8xk2qRvTregK3vx0WIN28DvQlDZvasA8E4KJZIyFvci9TP2pI+kJA8Mso8 UEqA== 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=F7kUWp35L6c4VOX9qJHQYF3Wg++dYrNlG3NNs0/5wW4=; b=X9Ord9vAk/F3IZlT9YbulD3Mrzjtxibda9mRCe1nn2TrGvxqHu/4/ZIEqLKs6yf3EH mg2LHcYDOKpoae0N/yl7BEmvRNEvbkJW768Sw3LF7KfCnPNVBvgqDi+jn2/iTqixLdA6 vIyCkfQjeihE1glPkxWc4ZiBkFcGTbhslofgGYgYUkDpwUwXepP8ThPWQGAtl8PbicKz ChTtRLz+eaK61n80sqgiKmHSP71cfiIOt+qOu8TptXLCcR8CTZ6kEzH4Grf2T1G1Es9b 0zV6Y3Rn0AEyhlvjeWgF+mnZDer78vwiPFlWZTGfjc1DWv1WPBAqBtDuMPK1bAwrD71j ZWMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7R4SYt3KoB320TZa9BLnjrq/H42IYwK8Bw5A8DcYCE0bKRMU8K ZR2rBW3MSy7SjkSgyFBoKA0b22e9 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbyrcVZSbCIMtWMuuHUwkT7uSKJpwkQkbkH1SOVrkjGfpdnQv4y5JyaCAHWWQZVwaoFxvHqXw== X-Received: by 10.28.35.80 with SMTP id j77mr10014451wmj.109.1511555072614; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 12:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.72.0.130] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t91sm11226448wrc.74.2017.11.24.12.24.31 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Nov 2017 12:24:31 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7144C68A-4936-4808-AD88-011B99524086" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Pete Heist In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 21:24:30 +0100 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= , Cake List Message-Id: <62E918D8-18C2-45E1-ACAD-05CBC0DFA55A@gmail.com> References: <71FB183D-F848-4513-A6F6-D03FD0F10769@gmail.com> <52C2B216-220C-4C17-882C-9994867E86BB@gmail.com> <87tvxlvsex.fsf@nemesis.taht.net> <87609zapmt.fsf@toke.dk> <0D339F2F-F2CB-4800-84B9-E7321AE4D15E@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] lan keyword affects host fairness 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, 24 Nov 2017 20:24:33 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7144C68A-4936-4808-AD88-011B99524086 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Nov 24, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Jonathan Morton = wrote: > Can I just point out that the four hardware queues will themselves be = interfering with the backpressure on short timescales when Cake is in = unlimited mode, and can easily explain the poorer host-fairness = performance >=20 Ok, just for clarity I have a single cake instance at the root, not four = of them under mq. > Conversely, the real performance is seen when the internal shaper is = used. What happens if you say "bandwidth 1Gbit ethernet"? >=20 Results posted for that with and without =E2=80=98lan'. I suppose I=E2=80=99= m starting then to lose control of the queue? It's around 1.85:1. = https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SMXWw2fLfmBRU622urfdvA_Ujsuf_KQ4P3= uyOH1skOM/edit#gid=3D2072687073 = Also on the =E2=80=9C1Gbit ethernet lan=E2=80=9D tab I thought to add = the output from =E2=80=9Ctc -s qdisc=E2=80=9D after the test from the = server side, for info. --Apple-Mail=_7144C68A-4936-4808-AD88-011B99524086 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Nov 24, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:

Can I just point out that the four hardware = queues will themselves be interfering with the backpressure on short = timescales when Cake is in unlimited mode, and can easily explain the = poorer host-fairness performance

Ok, just for = clarity I have a single cake instance at the root, not four of them = under mq.

Conversely, the real performance is seen when the = internal shaper is used.  What happens if you say "bandwidth 1Gbit = ethernet"?

Results posted for that with = and without =E2=80=98lan'. I suppose I=E2=80=99m starting then to lose = control of the queue? It's around 1.85:1.


Also on the =E2=80=9C1Gbit ethernet lan=E2=80=9D = tab I thought to add the output from =E2=80=9Ctc -s qdisc=E2=80=9D after = the test from the server side, for info.

= --Apple-Mail=_7144C68A-4936-4808-AD88-011B99524086--