From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-x22d.google.com (mail-wr0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22d]) (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 501973B2A4 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:04:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id i10so101739546wrb.0 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:04:02 -0800 (PST) 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:message-id:references :to; bh=wocJYYEHKulNiX1gwN/rG1yc7cSy8LeuVyyVKZr0mJo=; b=ZZaLpTF7mgDRkxvC38JffMGA/8epcANI2rQGGysXgd6EpjXPZggle3YRLa3uJ8PB01 fbwnv/xhn7nQyS13I+LxcGRTArUPu3mz7wWsBT5KWyKKBCreynC/g9G7lS+gRaz5Z12z OkUnE6LyLzZBVBl+rQYgNHrHnvqC0P2XR997tErur5NKKpmQNUYPIKPR/Eh+3/ukNuG3 WgAjNIqjDHYIIvIEal9TZoEomCKsQakaOp8TubYYVEr7PgIYU7KDB1d/dD6SQVbyrgv4 VhTk9jWxWn+GaF4l3X/OUFGLbHK4Be/MzDzHfh2inbl46rLRucrYCBdNg/BuZmZfAybb WBkA== 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 :message-id:references:to; bh=wocJYYEHKulNiX1gwN/rG1yc7cSy8LeuVyyVKZr0mJo=; b=RRwMaEQJdmnRPTQaYx6iHekdAAGVA76qsSPYPHJp9egHAtLgBnJ/pyC/QEaIA5YlXI cTCbNJ9tLYjLurFmIKCazIeuHjNu7uDihiXEj4sVyVSuCxwRZOVmPPG7Ph5eKo2xAKha rOnTmwRmsCHyH7BNB1QRZ0hsxGjBBGPW094ULLxJDczY7Pvh4jRh1M67h4g9EUiffVEf UftqAfczRocl2mFDK/ev0K+jbayBDQC+OnzX7XeiE204P4CyUvZExmND4XTsHBG2HLOD 1ArTOqAj23IApqiYoOQnSpjxKFQGLXYu0iaOMISECmUMOxzNPhoAY1YQsPJjLDwVflSn cICg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m1KpE4D/pxB7iwk64X2/B2wkHfkj4+MPbIQhAD4XzPxtDrqBI9OetSR2aNxFr2jQ== X-Received: by 10.223.136.50 with SMTP id d47mr7456326wrd.167.1486713840378; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:04:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.72.0.34] (h-1169.lbcfree.net. [185.99.119.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a72sm1383640wrc.48.2017.02.10.00.03.59 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:03:59 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E4D29F94-BFD0-4EED-97AA-0C42AEC2EB66" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Pete Heist In-Reply-To: <3D9E1A43-0182-4A1F-8262-6F587A79254E@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:04:03 +0100 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-Id: <830143EE-20F2-42A5-A4FC-ECE7DF50C632@gmail.com> References: <459B9F17-317F-465E-8D2F-361CF47E5F32@gmail.com> <3D9E1A43-0182-4A1F-8262-6F587A79254E@gmail.com> To: Jonathan Morton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] Cake latency update 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: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:04:02 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E4D29F94-BFD0-4EED-97AA-0C42AEC2EB66 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Feb 9, 2017, at 9:52 PM, Jonathan Morton = wrote: >=20 >> On 9 Feb, 2017, at 18:36, Pete Heist wrote: >>=20 >> I=E2=80=99m seeing good latency results for Cake at lower MCS levels = (graphs below), in case that wasn=E2=80=99t already known. >=20 > Yes - despite its complexity, Cake has always performed well on = latency in comparison to other qdiscs. >=20 > I gather this time you=E2=80=99re 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=E2=80=99t always seen Cake=E2=80=99s 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_1= 00ms_40mbit/index.html = but then as you lower the bitrate, Cake=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=A6= :) Pete --Apple-Mail=_E4D29F94-BFD0-4EED-97AA-0C42AEC2EB66 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
On = Feb 9, 2017, at 9:52 PM, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:

On 9 Feb, 2017, at = 18:36, Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com> wrote:

I=E2=80=99m seeing good latency results for Cake at lower MCS = levels (graphs below), in case that wasn=E2=80=99t already known.

Yes - despite its complexity, = Cake has always performed well on latency in comparison to other = qdiscs.

I gather this time you=E2=80=99re = 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=E2=80=99t always seen Cake=E2=80=99= 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/inde= x.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/i= ndex.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=E2=80=99s 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/i= ndex.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=E2=80=A6 :)

Pete

= --Apple-Mail=_E4D29F94-BFD0-4EED-97AA-0C42AEC2EB66--