From: Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com>
To: Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: [Cake] cake flenter results round 4
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 21:13:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7855AA2C-BF69-4B9E-8794-A7D15DE44C4F@gmail.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3891 bytes --]
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/ <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/>
Round 4 Tarball: http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4.tgz <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4.tgz>
*** Notes/Analysis ***
* I took the average satellite Internet latency of 638ms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access) and tried 20/20mbit 320ms delay each direction. So here we have 20mbit symmetric Internet with Cake running on both the CPE and satellite- common config! I’m sorry we don’t have Tooway 6/22mbit anymore for a real test, which was also here in desperation at the house at some point.
* Since I left the default rtt setting for most tests, these tests are an exploration of what problems that can cause. I enjoy failed experiments though (I’m looking at you penicillin). Here we can see that as we increase Cake’s rtt setting, total bandwidth improves, generally:
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/cake_rtt_200ms_rrulbe_eg_cake_18.0mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/cake_rtt_200ms_rrulbe_eg_cake_18.0mbit/index.html> (22.77mbit)
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/cake_rtt_400ms_rrulbe_eg_cake_18.0mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/cake_rtt_400ms_rrulbe_eg_cake_18.0mbit/index.html> (26.17mbit)
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/cake_rtt_600ms_rrulbe_eg_cake_18.0mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/cake_rtt_600ms_rrulbe_eg_cake_18.0mbit/index.html> (25.99mbit)
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/cake_rtt_800ms_rrulbe_eg_cake_18.0mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/cake_rtt_800ms_rrulbe_eg_cake_18.0mbit/index.html> (25.96mbit)
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/cake_rtt_1000ms_rrulbe_eg_cake_18.0mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/cake_rtt_1000ms_rrulbe_eg_cake_18.0mbit/index.html> (29.04mbit)
* Cool. In this case, increasing rtt actually _improves_ host fairness, as opposed to what we see with Ethernet around rtt 1ms, although TCP RTT suffers:
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/hostiso_cake_200ms_eg_cake_src_cake_dst_18.0mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/hostiso_cake_200ms_eg_cake_src_cake_dst_18.0mbit/index.html> (1.83)
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/hostiso_cake_400ms_eg_cake_src_cake_dst_18.0mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/hostiso_cake_400ms_eg_cake_src_cake_dst_18.0mbit/index.html> (1.64)
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/hostiso_cake_600ms_eg_cake_src_cake_dst_18.0mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/hostiso_cake_600ms_eg_cake_src_cake_dst_18.0mbit/index.html> (1.57)
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/hostiso_cake_800ms_eg_cake_src_cake_dst_18.0mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/hostiso_cake_800ms_eg_cake_src_cake_dst_18.0mbit/index.html> (1.45)
http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/hostiso_cake_1000ms_eg_cake_src_cake_dst_18.0mbit/index.html <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round4/hostiso_cake_1000ms_eg_cake_src_cake_dst_18.0mbit/index.html> (1.06)
* Sorry for the delay and not testing much in the last few days. R.I.P. our 16yo European housecat who left us yesterday. I really liked that cat. I’ve enjoyed looking at some of George’s results meanwhile...
*** Round 5 Plans
* If I do another high RTT test, make rtt 1000ms default and try even higher
* From Dave: tcp bbr, cdg, reno? dctcp would be weirdly interesting.
* From Dave: slot 4ms 4ms bytes 10k 16
* If I get time I could change flenter to do asymmetric bandwidth tests and go back to Dave’s four box config with ingress cake, which would probably be a more common config. All depends on time available…
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5317 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2017-12-02 20:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-02 20:13 Pete Heist [this message]
[not found] ` <CAJq5cE1rcgTY0wd8wK3p8XmHpiQ01ja3k+NNdjXtrpSm45hGEA@mail.gmail.com>
2017-12-02 21:15 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-12-03 8:28 ` Pete Heist
2017-12-04 3:29 ` Dave Taht
2017-12-04 9:02 ` Pete Heist
2017-12-05 17:10 ` 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=7855AA2C-BF69-4B9E-8794-A7D15DE44C4F@gmail.com \
--to=peteheist@gmail.com \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/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