From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x234.google.com (mail-qt0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (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 B11603B29E for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qt0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 33so25299084qtv.1 for ; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 16:06:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mRZsebeaw7zhEQtV9U2MGr5LqsAlEkeL5nbiqTML/N4=; b=KJ56f1WeoX3io0avDfLVcl50GKApCxq79pYBPLdwWHpCtfGeiVe9s7Ha0tmCPpXs68 nK+iuRA+Tm9IqyHHEn+sI4XMmABOzUS2svGgeXmz579hk/gNPtpfoEGRht347PaTp6YY R79YB/CmxaQPGW9pMbhK/I+j0eW6UqWpaXt91SHnYSleqH90cHRGAUUek9ln1V9RCPko M4fYFwcYYAVvgCIvlqBPseOZkenvS8MM4kj3qj+DnniXUmt7OPn+9woAX/c8qxCh5taP NZmXg2+C7CVDQJSSE3dUukZg+QdFv+QxJAATH6/S7mToE6BB9poItYYu93hIYLOL2PBQ JM9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mRZsebeaw7zhEQtV9U2MGr5LqsAlEkeL5nbiqTML/N4=; b=Dm7jaF0hnxI4YOGlrFvSoISd3RNQ+gpu4/GgQXhEK7mYATv3bRdsne5JYlOnpLWEGo vAnIgY40xR7rzhwk/ZGA2uPc3ez/2ydTBrGLy/I9yg9Mo9IwzHgrTWbGLLfY6VB+YJ7B 5rJyss2QckNjXSs9uv9XHuqpUT4WM192mxbgT6GriDfXrOO+bKk6V5wfYYKlrh2zsMkB Uxz2LQYW5zM5eEQV3r0bF5P51wZpa3iUIsU1zVNaEMdbFWWANcFGtBdir0Q2dY+CI3B/ kYszuObK6HJgXpA3Y/rAqPVBlbg1cYBfwU3E3NphEv/X3NUPGSjGZ4SpOfnMAcs0CEfD CB7g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKYMDN6g08+Um8cKL1D5yDs1EvCdp/D0YPNKV+n+Wl3LcuSIyT8 u97yCGBY/REgDiy2D8AvJwgJMYey+dlgDsKpYpE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYhO1UbiSRuv6RAV5/yU9nSVfgX2QxTIxOSbxf51PXBh3Y5YORmuAKr1SZBKRDJW1br2jIYbEt5VezRlGKVAu0= X-Received: by 10.55.201.155 with SMTP id m27mr20642693qkl.299.1512432404356; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 16:06:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.193.93 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:06:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1512426648.21759.19.camel@gmail.com> References: <1512426648.21759.19.camel@gmail.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 16:06:43 -0800 Message-ID: To: Georgios Amanakis Cc: Cake List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] cake vs fqcodel with 1 client, 4 servers 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: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:06:44 -0000 The puzzling thing about that graph is that you are only achieving 1.3 mbit in the ing case. On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Georgios Amanakis wro= te: > I tried to simulate a situation resembling Windows > updates/Steam/Torrents on a slow 10/2mbit connection. > > veth setup, 1 client, 4 servers > setup.tgz: > ./vsetup.sh > ./sshd.sh > ./vcake.sh > ./mm.sh > > servers -- delay -- isp -- mbox -- client > (4) 20ms 10/2mbit 9/1.8mbit (1) > > The client is creating in parallel 11 downstream and 2 upstream flows > to *each* of the 4 servers. > This was done by running 4 rrul_be_nflows tests in parallel. > > Cake vs HTB/fqcodel at mbox. > Cake tested with ack-filter and ingress/egress. > > Cake ingress, as expected, achieves better latency at the cost of > bandwidth. This does wonders on slow connections like mine. > > I will try to increase the number of clients to 4 and run some tests. > > George --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619