[Cake] A quick question about FQ_CoDel vs Cake

[Cake] A quick question about FQ_CoDel vs Cake

[Luis E. Garcia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 341 bytes --]

Hi everyone,
I've been doing some testing of Cake on LEDE (WD MyNet 750) and on EdgeOS
(Ubiquity ERPoe). One big question that I have is why does Cake have a
higher/better average throughput than FQ_CoDel? The graph seems a bit
smoother through the speed test.

The test are against a 10down/2up Mbps connection from a local provider.

Luis

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 425 bytes --]

Re: [Cake] A quick question about FQ_CoDel vs Cake

[Jonathan Morton]

> On 6 Apr, 2017, at 16:51, Luis E. Garcia <luis@bitamins.net> wrote:
> 
> I've been doing some testing of Cake on LEDE (WD MyNet 750) and on EdgeOS (Ubiquity ERPoe). One big question that I have is why does Cake have a higher/better average throughput than FQ_CoDel? The graph seems a bit smoother through the speed test.
> 
> The test are against a 10down/2up Mbps connection from a local provider.

The main difference that’s probably responsible for this is Cake’s integrated deficit-mode shaper, which is more accurate on short timescales than the more typical token-bucket shaper that fq_codel is used with.

There’s also some difference in the Codel implementation which might or might not be relevant, specifically in the calculation of “count” after a relatively brief exit from dropping state.

 - Jonathan Morton

Re: [Cake] A quick question about FQ_CoDel vs Cake

[Luis E. Garcia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1052 bytes --]

Thanks Jonathan,
With this explanation it makes sense.

Regards,
Luis

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:06 AM Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> > On 6 Apr, 2017, at 16:51, Luis E. Garcia <luis@bitamins.net> wrote:
> >
> > I've been doing some testing of Cake on LEDE (WD MyNet 750) and on
> EdgeOS (Ubiquity ERPoe). One big question that I have is why does Cake have
> a higher/better average throughput than FQ_CoDel? The graph seems a bit
> smoother through the speed test.
> >
> > The test are against a 10down/2up Mbps connection from a local provider.
>
> The main difference that’s probably responsible for this is Cake’s
> integrated deficit-mode shaper, which is more accurate on short timescales
> than the more typical token-bucket shaper that fq_codel is used with.
>
> There’s also some difference in the Codel implementation which might or
> might not be relevant, specifically in the calculation of “count” after a
> relatively brief exit from dropping state.
>
>  - Jonathan Morton
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1661 bytes --]