From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-x229.google.com (mail-wr0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::229]) (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 B731D3B2A4 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:34:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-x229.google.com with SMTP id z14so26574297wrb.8 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 06:34:41 -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=92hUj6u6TV7dg15Wq4eLaiQgD7N5SVhWHWXrrzj8Tk0=; b=lh8vdKMw08XpiESYdJQvsquC/b0vdE5oQYTq9VlKiDEk0L0BoZ5c+N8GnEKXvbyT7L UHgBoLGLm7p10UvplDvVvwJR7n5TL7pWND91CmJDXFGh2LG3n41KDy9qI5KwesEn07ZA k5YHhoYWfRcYdyVUWKxeECH37nlsGRhjY+Buisf/b0fJrlWmMxrwGLvKETagQK/Y6min b0L6Cvlnw74TFLzBy8XhULzNsEkUETpsaNe1rAURZH3oq4BKBdvuD5QHHggFDIXhHL41 YJnKVO/YVsgkAHFSWvgueVRmuv3u+z7scF+9iSBRNTRNOTlbOKN7DxOrVebdUIMd86ih H6eg== 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=92hUj6u6TV7dg15Wq4eLaiQgD7N5SVhWHWXrrzj8Tk0=; b=YYjhvystkJahNlxxFSvpPKVEBzEYIhSPAwnwsgzoUnx98mPAo5MmywjZrYIskP0cX3 MEDR1QWWbYoRmtQmRM1p/rFozo0pgl4dim6IMOAEwaYt+o+3qLonJOS9QmkQ5N/erdQE 3EZJ1FIfpXo04leCIHA69FQalLUCaEcbXvQfuzvhJGkHzHl5J22gLki0SgMms/SfLm+G fqnDlwWyOOd2Thd7lkOn0kU6B9N8wh07B50UNI4YzxpPseJa9N0P3VjHNYyIfdqGDM36 jOLMWfRAv2JqAYt4P6A8/xwJmG8fD7vK6KNbXDj8UZi+3KLq1BP+UkjI0KcGZxtGXumY a7Fg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5tdBzhrmkWWdlveu8BbEedHKX9EMbWRadbYyspWlnpAHReXNiz /FtELDC6Z/uK47WfyK7bBcM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYrdn9J63+A+QCHSppik+4U/1G4lhtYeP2M04JZmChXl9vILXnOtnJW442EuEb1eW+l7VIx+Q== X-Received: by 10.223.200.133 with SMTP id k5mr8019952wrh.79.1511793280803; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 06:34:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.72.0.130] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x63sm14097521wma.39.2017.11.27.06.34.39 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Nov 2017 06:34:40 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A7FBA135-C389-4154-8034-95DBC4CA1871" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Pete Heist In-Reply-To: <20D304DC-494E-4A00-9B39-1E9F4B0F0CB6@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:34:38 +0100 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= , Cake List Message-Id: <67B1612D-895D-4E3A-8CBD-21580B470696@gmail.com> References: <85E1A7B2-8AA7-418A-BE43-209A1EC8881A@gmail.com> <87d1447z9w.fsf@toke.dk> <27F95EB1-490B-404C-8F77-98646B6159E7@gmail.com> <1C937A63-CEC1-4173-8812-EA2A85972B73@gmail.com> <20D304DC-494E-4A00-9B39-1E9F4B0F0CB6@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton 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 14:34:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A7FBA135-C389-4154-8034-95DBC4CA1871 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Nov 27, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Pete Heist wrote: >=20 >> On Nov 27, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Jonathan Morton > wrote: >> Looking at the Cake stats for that run, it doesn't seem to have been = signalling congestion at all, when you'd expect it to with 13 bulk flows = running through it. Something odd is going on there. >>=20 > Ok, I=E2=80=99ll re-run this at a lower rate to make sure I=E2=80=99m = not running out of CPU, which I suppose would be more likely with the = dual-whatever keywords than not. That=E2=80=99s almost for sure the problem, as fairness works as = expected at 500mbit instead of 950mbit: = http://drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/hostiso_eg_cake_dsrc_cake_ddst_5= 00mbit/index.html = Either I have to test at this reduced rate or use fewer flows for this = test. The netperf instances were probably not able to output in total at = line rate, and going from srchost/dsthost to dual-srchost/dual-dsthost = was probably enough to make the difference in CPU consumption. Follow-up question, in theory, would it be possible for cake to know = that it doesn=E2=80=99t have enough CPU to operate properly so it can = emit a warning every so often?= --Apple-Mail=_A7FBA135-C389-4154-8034-95DBC4CA1871 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On Nov 27, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com>= wrote:

On Nov 27, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Jonathan Morton = <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:

Looking at the Cake stats for that run, it = doesn't seem to have been signalling congestion at all, when you'd = expect it to with 13 bulk flows running through it.  Something odd = is going on there.

Ok, I=E2=80=99ll re-run = this at a lower rate to make sure I=E2=80=99m not running out of CPU, = which I suppose would be more likely with the dual-whatever keywords = than not.

That=E2=80=99s almost for sure the problem, as fairness works = as expected at 500mbit instead of 950mbit:

http://drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/hostiso_eg_cake_dsrc_= cake_ddst_500mbit/index.html

Either I have to test at this reduced = rate or use fewer flows for this test. The netperf instances were = probably not able to output in total at line rate, and going from = srchost/dsthost to dual-srchost/dual-dsthost was probably enough to make = the difference in CPU consumption.

Follow-up question, in theory, would it = be possible for cake to know that it doesn=E2=80=99t have enough CPU to = operate properly so it can emit a warning every so = often?
= --Apple-Mail=_A7FBA135-C389-4154-8034-95DBC4CA1871--