Re: [Cake] Cake latency update

[Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>]

Hi Pete,

> On Feb 10, 2017, at 12:08, Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 10, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10 Feb, 2017, at 12:05, Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It means that both the ingress and egress have been redirected over the same IFB device and QoS'd together.
>> 
>> Okay, I guessed as much but wanted to be sure.
>> 
>> I can’t think of any theoretical reason for these results.  Cake’s flow isolation should be robust enough to cope transparently with bidirectional traffic in half-duplex mode.  As you say, a C2D should easily be able to keep up, and at these modest rates I can even discount PCI bandwidth as a concern.  So I might need to try to reproduce it here.
>> 
>> Does the problem go away if you use a wired link with the same setup otherwise?  Or is that inconvenient to try?  I have some ath9k equipped machines, but they would need to be set up.
> 
> Not a problem. I’ll 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’ll see…

	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… 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 

> 
> Pete
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake