From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (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 76BE43B25D for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id y184so17293402lfd.3 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:25:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=8dcXlZQEytz5kYuKLjklJebi0PoNdcLv4Pyi9zJMBI0=; b=ji8yWbC6mNAPeoCVHADIuTPptYf9ElEK/0vFs8vdbpWjiCICxB2nZ/s5CVWwjfWzID +g4rrIZmSEFQQvDNdKp2oZQBQ7Slwf7ZmnE1MmDP+fP5AOy0qx7LV2aOHTlpBngPvDAo nebZsoVR9SwOuJw+0WC6FJONkvSHTg2QU+F0AumNhmX8ML9UVjW75Wy/G1eCRzdkj2X1 2nhrHuEUG84pd5q64CWGEKYTLYP/X0CI9RMFLefAASnhOJaL0dtlgMyQ9wq2UFVl8alD /D/YmbBfuDnmKsF8gSrdQwjUQ8qvoyzAjFIStIkTx8/4wcjm0mgoRyjceTj2/bHAreYi gdrw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=8dcXlZQEytz5kYuKLjklJebi0PoNdcLv4Pyi9zJMBI0=; b=NIQDiBxhv8uycnx6umXCyUmJQX8w5NhOpAehf9WkzOS7/X5lf/nHtpHD8cQfg6vPPX mUFT5gI6tcBLGLtbKsgZIk9/gr2k6NP/+kDLRrpauTJJLjwn+uQP7fVsGSl5qTLATtGT tWLhK1k4eFyZspUcT4wYEKUr0WCx0vgwDmQ9BuezTaVHj+s23gVaEzcFN6vgAd785rG7 0wg78QQetgonkdVeRdgGHMogOMg7GgMxp+DrzJGsAWfH25Z6EVY1kOOaOtBKJV9nFFgc TA2UAC1TlHLYEIJitL/xZuDTty5KzpEb8aHSJv+HALkoWiYLKGGgg2HIrIUQdPEC+lat aqTg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIzQKhpvy7irHkK+LIbtLI+mVOFe+BvlEK9S7YLkUktx1vnA3Y7yX8hFr1v/okOAA== X-Received: by 10.46.71.17 with SMTP id u17mr12435103lja.49.1468686314168; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:25:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bass.home.chromatix.fi (37-33-96-207.bb.dnainternet.fi. [37.33.96.207]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 136sm1007506ljj.0.2016.07.16.09.25.12 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 16 Jul 2016 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: <5789FFEF.9010408@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 19:25:10 +0300 Cc: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <5789FFEF.9010408@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> To: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Cake] Cake strange behaviour 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: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 16:25:15 -0000 > Line is a 40/10 cake limited to 39000/9840. I think you might be rather optimistic on your ingress shaping rate. In = order to control the queue effectively in the (less ideal) downstream = position, the shaper needs to be set somewhat below the actual line = rate. I=E2=80=99m not yet sure exactly how far down it needs to be, but = just 2.5% is probably not enough, especially in the face of a traffic = type reputed to be =E2=80=9Cintensive". > Without extensive testing I have no faith that the current aqm = implementation in cake is actually working. Meanwhile, I=E2=80=99ve been downloading a fresh copy of Star Citizen = for the past 12+ hours, using the extremely intensive P2P method. Cake = reported 300-500 *bulk* flows at various times, all in the Best Effort = tin. Web browsing on the same machine is predictably slow, but actually = works (aside from servers which automatically cut connections after a = timeout, even if they aren=E2=80=99t idle). But web browsing on a *different* machine is still responsive, even with = fairly large images, thanks to triple-isolation. That wouldn=E2=80=99t = happen unless the upstream queue was being kept empty - a very difficult = task under that sort of load. All this is greatly helped by the fact that my 3G ISP has apparently = just upgraded a nearby tower, so I am now able to set 4Mbps ingress = without having to account for a lot of variability. Previously I had to = set 1Mbps ingress to be sure of low latencies. I really should get on with migrating my firewall to a different box, to = free up the one with two NICs. Then I can run the sort of tests that = might actually convince people. - Jonathan Morton