On 19 Dec 2015, at 21:03, Dave Taht wrote: > is that bcake configured via sqm to do 200mbit/20mbit, rings > in at 82% idle over a 2 minute period over a 1 minute rrul test. > cake, in all it's glory of statistics, extra features, bells, and whistles... > > is also 82% idle. > > vs sqm's htb + fq_codel at 86% idle. > > (in other words, this is not a direct measurement of the code under > 'load' but over a large sampling interval comparing idle with the > loaded state, AND (sigh) htb + fq_codel uses less cpu. am using the > mpstat 1 120 test for this from the openwrt sysstat package) > > The good news from my perspective: > > A) that it works at all with linux 4.4rc4 on the linksys 1200ac, which > was certainly not the case til last week > B) We CAN profile now > C) All systems for bandwidth (htb and cake) are accurate to 200mbit at > least, on this hardware > > The bad news from my perspective: > > A) I ran out of time for this back in august. Really have a ton of > wifi work stacked up. > > B) I'd like to see someone show an instance where cake uses less cpu > or is better in any way than htb+ fq_codel. > > There is a very small latency improvement (.8ms vs 1ms on this path). > > I do not see any other appreciable difference in cpu usage or network > behavior... aside from negative ones. > > Someone that's saying "ooh cake's better" *please* go measure rrul_be > while running "mpstat 1 120" for both sqm with fq_codel and sqm with > cake. > > C) I will try to summon the energy to try it on mips myself, tomorrow. > > -- > Dave Täht > Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! > https://www.gofundme.com/savewifi > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake -- Björn Grönvall, bjorngx@gmail.com, Cell +46 70 768 06 35, Jabber/XMPP: bg@kth.se “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.