From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dave@taht.net>
Received: from mail.taht.net (mail.taht.net [176.58.107.8])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3E803B2A4
 for <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:53:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nemesis.taht.net (unknown
 [IPv6:2603:3024:1536:86f0:2e0:4cff:fec1:1206])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.taht.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 661DE21341;
 Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:52:59 +0000 (UTC)
From: Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>
To: Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>,  Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
References: <mailman.1042.1510953593.3609.cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
 <D0D966B0-ACB8-4BF1-AA7E-72E8872C8DCD@gmail.com>
 <CAA93jw6zaGPwudHquzz2deA-74RAVmuL4U=zWbKPpJ9Fqb25tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4235D7B6-1CA6-4B57-BA00-97D3F7D44EFA@gmail.com>
 <8760a6rog8.fsf@nemesis.taht.net>
 <037FE91B-5F27-4CAD-AB56-24ED829C08F0@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:52:57 -0800
In-Reply-To: <037FE91B-5F27-4CAD-AB56-24ED829C08F0@gmail.com> (Pete Heist's
 message of "Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:02:28 +0100")
Message-ID: <87fu97v4za.fsf@nemesis.taht.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Cake] [RFC PATCH 4/5] q_netem: support delivering packets in
	delayed time slots
X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation <cake.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cake>,
 <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cake>
List-Post: <mailto:cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake>,
 <mailto:cake-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:53:01 -0000

Pete Heist <peteheist@gmail.com> writes:

>     On Nov 19, 2017, at 9:41 PM, Dave Taht <dave@taht.net> wrote:
>
>=20=20=20=20=20
>=20=20=20=20=20
>     Yep with bql. I hadn=E2=80=99t thought about mq before. What my qos s=
etup scripts
>         are
>         doing though is replacing the root qdisc (which now I see default=
s to
>         mq) with a
>         single cake instance. With bql, should rather be leaving mq and p=
utting
>         four
>         cake instances underneath it?
>
>     Only if you want unlimited mode, and birthday problems, and don't have
>     cpu to burn.
>=20=20=20=20=20
>
> Ok, if I compare the two, latency under load for rrul_be looks =E2=80=9Cb=
etter=E2=80=9D
> (~1-1.5ms instead of ~3ms) with a single =E2=80=9Ccake unlimited besteffo=
rt lan=E2=80=9D
> instance instead of four of them underneath mq.

Yep. Adding more unmanaged queues doesn't help. However it should spread
the load across more cpus.