From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (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 2F2393B2A3 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:02:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id v186so67555256wmd.0 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:02:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w9BcUWnee+iSmejhvbEarSG6pmvnghdItWaqLALJsgY=; b=um2Ae8yOUgg5Jn66RWs9ZfikncEAuNAU9QOo2jGn+kEZPn0XgGyZGV/KpWeVg/2vcD u8wTrhEXYMTTYwOLF8Q4QSKaq3Tz02CUwxEkJqz3K/Yl9THwnlsvBE33wZIpXBj/fknc Q1ThCg2RvUcrgWdIU7DpdzysFTmuBocfMGR2FuQNxYMrIR7kE4dXph18Z+hxYulXJwk3 cXHV26+bhJsQrifxSOQSIl/XtUpImHvs9vqRMOSFvpetY75yDpimABCxxk2VyDmyn6WX kQbTy4i633q+pIkdsNTOt322ufBPubbDZfMw56AYDTkP/Iujgrq20T+EacEOxjVFNK2t VIuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w9BcUWnee+iSmejhvbEarSG6pmvnghdItWaqLALJsgY=; b=Rrf0yBsQ3HycEOONgf21qBb+ouhqnIdvTG34txZVHO2TEEOyUrbxli7Aoit5wAXYX7 lbZ0F7eJmXwk4k8EYvVORk/bAvLQdOczBQbGJCMxY9FxOtUW2UiQa7MFrpdnaZ/PwZZu 1tzIBfaY3co6vM9XWWm9s+LEWP5pdhv0yIEif3mV6vy5Ku4rPFfl6q8R38VCAFcmSK+K ZK1n48W+262x+bwk84OhvEm4Dns944b1y0Li8RKWFanCctn/DGmSTZzsjEYk3IzoF4zI XkhJza3tKqy5ute8w/Rfkmx+E7Qv2QQwtn77kVWcwUH4Z23mPilDfZknokbXlV0qlQ5g TiPA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kPrle9+PtjbSMcQN6EDo0wNnKmnXDykkHUawCsCxOYqsQ/NZNkSMW/cthpuucf1w== X-Received: by 10.28.43.6 with SMTP id r6mr14416889wmr.0.1488218526235; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:02:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (34.218.125.91.dyn.plus.net. [91.125.218.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z70sm4330882wrc.2.2017.02.27.10.02.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:02:05 -0800 (PST) To: Sebastian Moeller Cc: Jonathan Morton , cake@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <75e10bac-f982-655f-0ef6-483a36797479@gmail.com> <6EA3F28B-2A50-4BDB-A0D4-B94207BFF1A4@gmail.com> <3c0c8aab-2a9a-82a4-0828-d58c604d35dc@gmail.com> <028AA856-B11E-4025-B1BD-84BAC6768508@gmx.de> From: Andy Furniss Message-ID: <9353cc42-220b-af1b-3105-19be52ed0627@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:02:04 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <028AA856-B11E-4025-B1BD-84BAC6768508@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Cake] 5ms target hurting tcp throughput tweakable? 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: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:02:07 -0000 Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Looking at tc-adv, I would recommend to use “rtt 50” (maybe it is > “rtt 50ms”) which allows to directly explicitly request a new > “interval” (which IIRC is corresponding to the time you allow for > the TCP control loop to react to cake’s ecn-marking/dropping) > “target’ will be calculated as 5% of the explicit interval, in > accordance with the rationale in the codel RFC. 50 is certainly better than 10, but still seems to hurt single a bit even on a close server. On more distant servers maybe even more - I am getting results that are too variable to tell properly at the current time (of day). http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=1488216166262542155 Almost OK, but with 100ms this test usually shows x1 and x6 the same. http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html?id=1488218291872647755 Of course as we all know ingress shaping is a different beast anyway and would deserve its own thread.