Re: [Cake] Testing variants of the MTU latency scaling

[Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1427 bytes --]

Assuming you’re using luci to configure then enabling both show and use advanced configuration & show and use dangerous configurations… then enter ‘ingress’ in the ‘advanced option string to pass to ingress queuing’ will enable ingress mode.

Maybe that helps?

> On 24 Apr 2018, at 20:04, Jonas Mårtensson <martensson.jonas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
> Jonas Mårtensson <martensson.jonas@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > One thing that is still not clear to me from these results: if I run
> > cake on an IFB without ingress mode (i.e. the default?), does the MTU
> > scaling have any impact on TCP download throughput?
> 
> Odds are that not using ingress mode will make Cake lose control of the
> bottleneck (that is what happened when I tried running a quick test),
> and so will mess up both latency and throughput as you hit the bloated
> upstream link buffer...
> 
> So using cake through sqm-scripts in OpenWRT/LEDE for ingress shaping does not currently work very well then? I guess the sqm-scripts should be updated to actually use ingress mode at some point...
> 
> /Jonas
> _______________________________________________
> Cake mailing list
> Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake


Cheers,

Kevin D-B

012C ACB2 28C6 C53E 9775  9123 B3A2 389B 9DE2 334A


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]