From: Pete Heist <pete@eventide.io>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Cc: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>,
"Cake List" <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cake] net-next is OPEN...
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 23:17:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6D78919D-C4F0-4EC6-A9D4-BA81EEAC334D@eventide.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <129AF371-272F-4462-9EAF-71C861164E4C@eventide.io>
> On Apr 18, 2018, at 7:43 AM, Pete Heist <pete@eventide.io> wrote:
>
> I also think I saw this happen at lower bandwidths as well, when the CPU wasn’t loaded. What I’ll do is re-test on the current version I have at, say, 50Mbit (or to where load drops substantially), then update to the head and test again, and let you know...
>
>> On Apr 17, 2018, at 3:52 PM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 Apr, 2018, at 11:55 pm, Pete Heist <pete@eventide.io> wrote:
>>>
>>> I remember that fairness behavior at low RTTs (< 20ms) needed to be either improved or documented
>>
>> The reason for the behaviour, IIRC, was that throughput dropped below 100% when the latency target was reduced too much. Since then there has been a small change which might improve it a little, so a retest would be reasonable.
At 50mbit I don’t see nearly as much fairness degradation at low RTTs, although there’s some. Even at 100us, “fairness” is around 1.1 (1.0 being perfectly fair) instead of the 2.x I saw at 500mbit. I do not see much of a difference between the latest code (16d7fed, 2018-04-17) and the previous code I tested (7061401, 2017-12-01), if that info is of use.
RTT: tcp_1up upload Mbps / tcp_12up upload Mbps
7061401 (2017-12-01):
100us: 23.80 / 25.85
1ms: 23.89 / 29.46
10ms: 23.93 / 24.66
40ms: 23.96 / 24.10
100ms: 23.97 / 24.12
16d7fed (2018-04-17):
100us: 23.97 / 26.49
1ms: 23.89 / 26.27
10ms: 23.98 / 26.37
40ms: 23.94 / 24.08
100ms: 23.97 / 24.12
I can post reports / flent files on request.
So it appears this is CPU related, and not worth exploring further(?) and not worth documenting(?) other than that once things have stabilized, documenting how Cake degrades under various extreme conditions would be informative.
Well, here’s to science and a good walk in the weeds…
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-19 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20180416.110000.1863692416063182988.davem@davemloft.net>
2018-04-16 15:01 ` [Cake] Fwd: " Dave Taht
2018-04-16 15:12 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-16 20:55 ` [Cake] " Pete Heist
2018-04-16 21:23 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-17 2:45 ` [Cake] fairness vs RTT Pete Heist
2018-04-17 8:24 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2018-04-17 13:52 ` [Cake] net-next is OPEN Jonathan Morton
2018-04-18 5:43 ` Pete Heist
2018-04-19 21:17 ` Pete Heist [this message]
2018-04-20 9:32 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2017-12-01 14:52 [Cake] net-next is open Dave Taht
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=6D78919D-C4F0-4EC6-A9D4-BA81EEAC334D@eventide.io \
--to=pete@eventide.io \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=chromatix99@gmail.com \
--cc=toke@toke.dk \
/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