> On Feb 9, 2017, at 9:52 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote: > >> On 9 Feb, 2017, at 18:36, Pete Heist wrote: >> >> I’m seeing good latency results for Cake at lower MCS levels (graphs below), in case that wasn’t already known. > > Yes - despite its complexity, Cake has always performed well on latency in comparison to other qdiscs. > > I gather this time you’re comparing it against the mac80211 fq_codel, rather than a conventional qdisc stack? Yes, this is on stock LEDE, and I hope to complete results on Chaos Calmer. I haven’t always seen Cake’s latency numbers lower compared to fq_codel. If I take these two: http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_fd-wifi-both_40mbit/index.html http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_fd-wifi-both_40mbit/index.html FQ-CoDel did better in this case, but it was running on the AP (OM2P-HS, 520 MHz MIPS 74Kc). When run on higher powered Intel routers it basically tied fq_codel: http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_fd-eth-ap_100ms_40mbit/index.html http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_fd-eth-ap_target_5ms_interval_100ms_40mbit/index.html but then as you lower the bitrate, Cake’s performance on the rrul test seems to get better relative to fq_codel: http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/mcstmp/mcs_latency.png I look forward to the throughput shifts being solved, where I see results like this: http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth-ap_100ms_80mbit/index.html This is the only thing so far that would keep me from recommending it for my ISP to test. Otherwise the results from Cake are promising… :) Pete