From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 647EB21F53C for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbea3 with SMTP id ea3so38524343obb.0 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:10:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fh26yzZyxampKxZoM4YkmjELmutmIc/005Gesmoslas=; b=snoyFH0+J1zTHP0+TrokYg/kLSm+jRKwMR/FEe55igfij0cn3JYZ7QlfZSBr9LJq75 3wT0kmYmaChhMr1ZbhNimzNNdQJStTjRUckhQwZnfJhKH4gyvcVh0iDHIzPfq06de3bV 3dAoJU+DjWWfzBdEHUNIeDfNQfD9RX56mugBaGigFYIbObyUqYtmBsO+KoCSxTDT0qAO EUWJgs/ONWWpDup3wb31tCiMEgKLNtAn8DrfNXPppAqABK54E/ew36VOrfQiu3wt8R5j ehw2KLBbFh6R4hVhhO+5BH7Y1TK1znCaH10MdjRW4avJuwN85iyJvVqcPZ4vcWfvsC5N KOXw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.227.15 with SMTP id a15mr32357679oih.59.1433441447188; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.105.129 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:10:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:10:47 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] a little bit of cake testing X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 18:11:16 -0000 I did a bit of setup on my connection to give me a decent rrul result. (I was not rate limiting inbound enough) The duration of the initial load spike is much less pronounced than the fq_codel result. I note that I have offloads still on, so I imagine fq_codel is getting tweaked by that.... but ingress gets way out of hand later on in this test. I can make an argument for decay (count/2) being far too aggressive. In fact, even count - 2 seemed too much in older testing I had done with other variants. I would certainly like to get a feel for when and where the three parts of codel are kicking in in various workloads. http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/613646 I really need to get to where I can quickly get to a blog entry on this stuff, and back to comprehensive, controlled testing. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > My network here is in flux (new modem, signal strength problems, cable > problems) and toke's testbed is presently doing wifi work, so I did a > quick mod to fishcake to make it do linux 4.0 (note I am not sure if > this was a 4.1 or a 4.0 change) - attached. (and we lose a few cake > options due to me not grokking the new API) > > Cake did well on this, but the behavior at the tail end of the test > was disturbing: > > http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/611312 > > Need to do some work to emulate the dslreports tests. > > And it dropped LOT more packets than fq_codel did. fq_codel marked 33 > packets for it's result, cake marked 600 and dropped 200, for its. > > I did some rrul testing as well, but was fighting with a modem that > used to get 140Mbits, and now only gets 70mbits, and behaves very > differently overall with pfifo_fast than i had ever seen before. And > along the way snapon got upgraded a bit too... sigh... > > -- > Dave T=C3=A4ht > What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? > https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast