Cake - FQ_codel the next generation
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adrian Popescu <adriannnpopescu@gmail.com>
To: Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: [Cake] Cake ingress experiments & policing
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 18:28:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAF3M4P3-PDWZuRjjUDy23oA_BLxCEvk_6_nWznDZ1azL-Txbqw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1678 bytes --]

Hello,

These are some some random thoughts and notes related to some of my
experiments with cake and traffic shaping.

The performance issues observed on the cake setup seemed to be worth
another look. The mirred and ifb setup seemed to have lower performance
than expected.

This was easy enough to test by replacing cake with sfq on the ifb
interface. The setup had the same performance issues as the setup with
cake.

It's most likely not reasonable to expect cake to be able to shape at
1 gbps either if a setup with something with less complexity can't deal
with 300-400 mbps worth of MTU sized packets in the mirred and ifb
setup.

This set of experiments has determined me to consider alternative
options for ingress. A policer seems to be the right choice.

A policer which sets the ECN bit on ECT enabled flows could help. There
doesn't seem to be a documented way of doing this with tc actions &
filters. Would this be possible for IPv6 traffic? The ECN marking on
ECT enabled flows is the missing bit which would make this work for
IPv4. A pedit action may be useful if combined with a match on ECT.
It's something I haven't figured out yet.

Perhaps some tests with a simple flow blind marking policer would be
worth a shot.

Maybe it'd be worth to see other people's setups and even ISP type
setups to figure out what else to try.


Some of my other experiments included wifi ingress shaping. The upload
speed seemed capped at 3-8 mbps while wifi was shaped on ingress. This
appears to be a bug.
Shaping wifi at a rate which is lower than that of the link's total
bandwidth seems to be more difficult since we can't limit on ingress
based on the egress interface.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1881 bytes --]

                 reply	other threads:[~2019-03-03 16:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cake.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAF3M4P3-PDWZuRjjUDy23oA_BLxCEvk_6_nWznDZ1azL-Txbqw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=adriannnpopescu@gmail.com \
    --cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox