From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-x230.google.com (mail-it0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::230]) (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 5D4B23B29E for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-it0-x230.google.com with SMTP id u62-v6so16431430ita.5 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:04:37 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=vzH0IkvhVuOo3BxtSh2e1GDt2ljo7goP+wjCoF+rdQc=; b=Du2czK2PpUUHNIr7VIhbA7YDVVWeGhPLsKcQowMOirIjV9MsAScwWnQGKXrg2t0CXm CTPYtV/3FtKJm5w8tqKtBT42GxUXjzK4yFLZObWakASsOd0/798TaACZxAIgc+tpcjF1 lJk9GNp8w2l4gNZS/n75EBxrafPO06EPYuvKvcpTcsHSes0R80g5BiZZsg9/NZu84+Kq 77sW1k1FndstpwcMXGVi9YrnDFCsKzfBm7Oeh6MHKAYby6TQkL4T6tYUOWghqcorxgTG pGecww24wN87Q2J+bgCtSHdqLMaBf+A0u6ka3IiqiqCxDvrR1576pFFaAqJAj16466vp dzXQ== 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; bh=vzH0IkvhVuOo3BxtSh2e1GDt2ljo7goP+wjCoF+rdQc=; b=BrccAfGb0HJX0vCR8nfVuSXvVe63zHmKqvK9nLGjVmn8rKT+g3pnonPp/lA+TmN2rd pcJ6dF2lmYcLVqOFuWSmq3SFM4o1Z2boOe5zK4dMU5SIMLADK4FpIA+imTag4Ts4OB6+ fQHjUz3FsyeKA0TCHoxetCcDVpNXJi/j5v8XDyXPB5BkRuviJIZKv+a6StR/ljQ5sjNU tKuSNTrOmXpDGBWIjysUDf5XvlKiictPDAy5yeTYJc8IAK5OmFtQ3r+9C1VrfjrQSvAs MPc2PjBGT9SM2tIWcKW1JtZSMEeHGxw5D1gKLQSwyf5ogoBBHiARJmjuB/ijgXGQIYse e6AQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBvO5PtrzhkbN3gbw/vSrYorgdpTT6cqOY7WtbXrdFQzDRbOsK9 BlEFqW7c4E/ULlt0tgWBBPmqpAj/hP2q6w/hyFM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZolNGhk7lJLTWCw4l7ldZoog4yZZGjRqa8XJPPtam4A0bZvss1BZw2pkwxAqJBvjP4vkGk28wNXGfCvPltd/yk= X-Received: by 2002:a24:4c14:: with SMTP id a20-v6mr20544128itb.10.1524596676718; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:04:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a02:52c8:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:04:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <877eow96a3.fsf@toke.dk> References: <87a7tv3r5z.fsf@toke.dk> <877eow96a3.fsf@toke.dk> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_M=C3=A5rtensson?= Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 21:04:35 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= Cc: Jonathan Morton , Cake List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005779e3056a9cd3f0" Subject: Re: [Cake] Testing variants of the MTU latency scaling 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, 24 Apr 2018 19:04:37 -0000 --0000000000005779e3056a9cd3f0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: > Jonas M=C3=A5rtensson writes: > > > One thing that is still not clear to me from these results: if I run > > cake on an IFB without ingress mode (i.e. the default?), does the MTU > > scaling have any impact on TCP download throughput? > > Odds are that not using ingress mode will make Cake lose control of the > bottleneck (that is what happened when I tried running a quick test), > and so will mess up both latency and throughput as you hit the bloated > upstream link buffer... So using cake through sqm-scripts in OpenWRT/LEDE for ingress shaping does not currently work very well then? I guess the sqm-scripts should be updated to actually use ingress mode at some point... /Jonas --0000000000005779e3056a9cd3f0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen <toke@tok= e.dk> wrote:
Jonas M=C3=A5rtensson <= martensson.jonas@gmail.com> writes:

> One thing that is still not clear to me from these results: if I run > cake on an IFB without ingress mode (i.e. the default?), does the MTU<= br> > scaling have any impact on TCP download throughput?

Odds are that not using ingress mode will make Cake lose control of = the
bottleneck (that is what happened when I tried running a quick test),
and so will mess up both latency and throughput as you hit the bloated
upstream link buffer...

So using cake throu= gh sqm-scripts in OpenWRT/LEDE for ingress shaping does not currently work = very well then? I guess the sqm-scripts should be updated to actually use i= ngress mode at some point...

/Jonas
--0000000000005779e3056a9cd3f0--