From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-x235.google.com (mail-wr0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::235]) (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 49E483B2A4 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:16:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-x235.google.com with SMTP id o22so32879464wro.1 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 05:16:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5TeoAJWl/A531UukZsGgb81C+6qcXiyGFtY2wSFmIP4=; b=VJh8sWYfcXutool5SiNwkW8F7JNQhG8iCzVAcRlPkeU/5haj/mkLXLR1JbLQoZlf0u BMe1oFG9PZ16SU6L5poRsi6MHrJYKg9eg63Necqad5Q7G7pMDnShlruCwrY2WMiTr/2P Scm4jtlu6DIM6KGLOEblbLgl8qHX4WDzLMbuAdxXslV/UfUqzyvG6ryGLN+nQZbf0nTF r1toNssM3uGXhwAeN/FSndL8EPm4AQIoyUGrwSbPveC+4P4RksWokeJtIySmkRR+N6Nf mQjeGYeHGYyH7Tk+jABYE4Xgw7X9+LJxomgAJISUCmfpj17BBp3ReexMMcHabF8KDv0k jF1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5TeoAJWl/A531UukZsGgb81C+6qcXiyGFtY2wSFmIP4=; b=sFXhZ/31bmDRmEoWrsiRzFS7dPkZiMiJqySWNH94xwGN95lxsG1Lr1OLqPPZdm107W PUHx1/oHwq9n7UhhW4/JW2oUVlV78LV4bitsEt9LtPW4+IVbKr52s9ntUL17HPq9kxdu CDtlPU3HeTbJsj+RgzeOLq748FbsQQBm5ookpVE9PnGCD33zmx8mZkn4Pgy+apZ/a5la N2wHNURQK0LqLcqgD1a3BFWu0icX6Hgg+/aGbBoM1aWsP1qMMcUE0ZxOQ9xO0B2f7wtJ 39q5bqoYBWTO8r/73bgvA+OWuWrz/DYKv5kNlWhqr4Aii2+x7vb1p3BjGegkio1ICPVM KElg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k1Bhip+TddMxsOJGr3/X/zT7y74OY07xxaCzTDRQSzSF3y2IaH80cSvAfDRTyS5w== X-Received: by 10.223.170.3 with SMTP id p3mr11604521wrd.100.1488114979065; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 05:16:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (53.218.125.91.dyn.plus.net. [91.125.218.53]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u184sm10164489wmb.29.2017.02.26.05.16.18 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Feb 2017 05:16:18 -0800 (PST) To: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net From: Andy Furniss Message-ID: <75e10bac-f982-655f-0ef6-483a36797479@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 13:16:18 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Cake] 5ms target hurting tcp throughput tweakable? 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: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 13:16:20 -0000 Hi, I am new to cake and just messing around currently. I notice that on my setup with vdsl2 20mbit sync the default 5ms target on best effort hurts netperf throughput a bit as latency to host rises. My setup. tc qdisc add dev ppp0 handle 1:0 root cake bandwidth 19690kbit raw overhead 34 diffserv4 Where ppp0 is pppoe. qdisc cake 1: root refcnt 2 bandwidth 19690Kbit diffserv4 triple-isolate rtt 100.0ms noatm overhead 56 via-ethernet Sent 3250414679 bytes 5976629 pkt (dropped 3404, overlimits 3402556 requeues 0) backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 memory used: 221952b of 4Mb capacity estimate: 19690Kbit Bulk Best Effort Video Voice thresh 1230Kbit 19690Kbit 9845Kbit 4922Kbit target 14.8ms 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms interval 109.8ms 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms pk_delay 63us 9us 0us 146us av_delay 7us 6us 0us 10us sp_delay 4us 4us 0us 4us pkts 1237775 4725460 0 16798 bytes 1781536029 1472719560 0 1224478 way_inds 11 43327 0 1 way_miss 14051 69600 0 3066 way_cols 0 0 0 0 drops 81 3323 0 0 marks 0 0 0 0 sp_flows 36 1 0 0 bk_flows 1 0 0 0 un_flows 0 0 0 0 max_len 1500 1500 0 1428 Testing to flent-eu.bufferbloat.net which is 50ms from me, putting a single netperf upload into bulk gets up to 0.6 - 1mbit better throughput that if it goes through best effort. Trying a simulation on lan with netem and cake vs hfsc 100p fifo also shows that latency doesn't need to rise much to start hurting netperf throughput. Is there any way or plans to allow users to relax slightly the target?