From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (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 74FAB3B29E for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:44:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id u65so122520514wmu.1 for ; Tue, 02 May 2017 11:44:14 -0700 (PDT) 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 :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5kNDWYdxNhTrGKJFbd89vXZ3gJzTPSVnF0iGPpMmMc8=; b=BFkU2ij8obtu1c/gY8oF03Z4T5eIrooznJA94M+/YNB/icpX8zn3E3ZvF7MPmp0Fgk +UUBia8zE6IXnUrbbrHLRXXAb2BXXVvM2ketuI209ymLhJnEo4z7yFk8fb6oGsGHKcLH TigoknzbCC8ENi4G5Nb+a+srFHfR/MjseVk1Ub44QhfBHwDPN+NOG6ztNOyVGDKz4v9I vdYYKzWxdJe49PqTt0fG209FLlPssxt0hxiZ2Xoz1kMsMg+AfgzY+a7CUJx4Nb+ysGcy 2vIzQJBBvp56ZhXviNYgxo3cjo/QFLpOwrnSKxM6gXmzz9AzFpJNaP8tzP5qzRTDV/An 5UhA== 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 :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=5kNDWYdxNhTrGKJFbd89vXZ3gJzTPSVnF0iGPpMmMc8=; b=Ob+frZGG0a1Ax2zoBy5xGH5lS7NhZkmdrnMYhHc7X5o0XYnUNweiwFXdPkd4vPE3zY jl69NV2VH6v3VJ9ga+rrxxA74mxA5v7zrtI7XT3l0+GBqzdV/o4StTDswTyRuHSnFUIn eUq6EIbQzSFDy+apZ4osZfmUTItJ6Cu4fpEjk2UwJM/8av4ZiNcMURE9yaLDfBSdKdWD UjZqSCA1QMwn+64HohD6kTDn6M78cuKKxJIeS0nri1jUmzqz/nn7OUNflDAVnsYZrvSl 3+60FWl5geBAUq25rWrXC7gh/Yq17fFgsu96QOouB9bvKYGVjQLURSPmt8/ID4ay9kJC ceTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5M3eAbi+Q6bINMkddLPU/p4iLtuRZamYTiPumHqT1U3KZkX0vM Ag7HH4z/xBss3g== X-Received: by 10.28.69.147 with SMTP id l19mr3830444wmi.91.1493750653497; Tue, 02 May 2017 11:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.72.0.20] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b188sm1708102wmh.6.2017.05.02.11.44.12 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 May 2017 11:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Pete Heist In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 20:44:11 +0200 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7B914FA7-38A6-4113-9B2C-D6246873676A@gmail.com> References: To: erik.taraldsen@telenor.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] Recomended HW to run cake and fq_codel? 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: Tue, 02 May 2017 18:44:14 -0000 > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 10:34:45 +0000 > From: > To: > Cc: > Subject: Re: [Cake] Recomended HW to run cake and fq_codel? > Message-ID: <1493721285271.28909@telenor.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" >=20 > I'm actually most interested in how this works on low bandwidth = accesses. Typicaly, what can we as an ISP do to make ADSL and VDSL less = sucky for our customers. So an Edge Router PoE-5 1) or the X sfp 2) = would be a good platform for this? (Don't need the PoE or sfp, but it's = the easiest accessible version here in Norway). >=20 > Nils, very good of you to keep such packages precompiled! That will = save me a lot of time. > ------------------------------ >=20 > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 14:11:20 +0200 > From: Nils Andreas Svee > To: erik.taraldsen@telenor.com > Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: Re: [Cake] Recomended HW to run cake and fq_codel? > Message-ID: > = <1493727080.1510042.962956680.40220FCB@webmail.messagingengine.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8" >=20 > Kinda surprising that the plain ER-X isn't readily available. I know > Dustin used to have them, but they're out of stock. Both of them will = do > just fine, but I'd probably pick the ER-X-SFP for the beefier CPU, if > only to get some extra headroom. Mind the ER-X only have 256 MB RAM = and > 256 MB flash, if that matters to you. >=20 > DSL tends to suck pretty (read: very) bad without proper shaping, I > know. On that note, are you planning to run an AQM on both ends of the > bottleneck, or shape ingress traffic via a IFB device? CAKE helps a = lot > when running on ingress, but it can't come close to running on both > ends. >=20 > Best Regards > Nils Just sharing some experience/thoughts from a few angles: - As for low bandwidth, in my experience AQM works great on low = bandwidth ADSL. A few years ago I used fq_codel at a campground to shape = a 0.5 / 5 Mbps ADSL connection. With up to 130 people in the camp, it = was a disaster before fq_codel, where one person saturating either the = up or downstream could easily cause 600+ ms of induced latency. fq_codel = could keep that to 40-50 ms under load, enough to make it usable for web = browsing, at least, and Cake does better. - I did the ER-X testing referred to in the UBNT forums (pgage). I=E2=80=99= ve since learned much more about AQM by testing point-to-point WiFi = setups, so I should really repeat those ER-X tests some time to make = sure my results were accurate, but afaik ~120 Mbps using Cake is = possible with the ER-X. I=E2=80=99m now using Cake in production on the = ER-X at rates around 40 Mbps with Lochnair=E2=80=99s builds (on EdgeOS = 1.9.1) and it does a great job. - It=E2=80=99s an interesting question: what can be done as an ISP? = Essentially it boils down to the fundamentals of deploying AQM- finding = where the queues are forming and placing fq_codel or Cake at the = bottleneck links, preferring =E2=80=9Chardware=E2=80=9D queue management = like BQL or in the case of WiFi the ath9k=E2=80=99s driver in LEDE, over = soft rate limiting, where possible. When soft rate limiting, the rate = limiting strategy and chosen rate are the most CPU intensive and finicky = parts of deploying AQM. - I don't understand why ADSL modem vendors don=E2=80=99t just bake = BQL-like functionality right into their devices so they can ship AQM = without the need for soft rate limiting. AQM is so effective on ADSL's = upstream that it seems it would just make a lot of sense. For that = matter, why not on the DSLAM as well to shape the customer=E2=80=99s = downstream, if that=E2=80=99s also a bottleneck? - There seems to be a bit of upheaval now with BBR. If every host had = BBR deployed, that would theoretically mitigate the need for AQM, but = it=E2=80=99s a) it=E2=80=99s going to be years before that happens and = b) I=E2=80=99m not sure all the BBR corner cases have been found yet. = There are far more knowledgeable people than me on this and already more = detailed discussions about it.