Re: [Cake] Getting Cake to work better with Steam and similar applications

[Dendari Marini <dendari92@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4609 bytes --]

Hello,

Could you share the two output plots somewhere, so I can have a look at
> those? (Also I might want tto ask for the text file that actually was
> generated by the ping collector script, just so I can run and
> confirm/de-bug things my self).


Sure thing. The plot images: http://imgur.com/a/qDtA0 And the output text
file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7vEuplJWEIkc1ozbUZRSGstajQ

On 24 April 2017 at 13:34, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 2017, at 10:41, Dendari Marini <dendari92@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Probably correct, but you do not have to resort to believing, you can
> actually try to measure that ;) In case I have been too subtle before, have
> a look at https://github.com/moeller0/ATM_overhead_detector and follow
> the instructions there...
> >
> > I just used your script and it estimated an overhead of 20 bytes, so
> should I use "overhead 20 atm" or am I missing something? In the last few
> days I've been using "pppoe-llcsnap" ("overhead 40 atm") without any
> evident issue, should I change it?
>
>         Hmm, 20 seems rather interesting and something I never saw before.
> Could you share the two output plots somewhere, so I can have a look at
> those? (Also I might want tto ask for the text file that actually was
> generated by the ping collector script, just so I can run and
> confirm/de-bug things my self). I am not saying 20 is impossible, just that
> it is improbable enough to require more scrutiny.
>
>
> Best Regards
>         Sebastian
>
>
> >
> > FWIW here's a quick example on ingress ppp that I tested using connmark
> > the connmarks (1 or 2 or unmarked) being set by iptables rules on
> outbound
> > connections/traffic classes.
> >
> > Unfortunately I'm really not sure how to apply those settings to my
> case, it's something I've never done so some hand-holding is probably
> needed, sorry. At the moment I've limited the Steam bandwidth using the
> built-in Basic Queue and DPI features from the ER-X. They're easy to set up
> but aren't really ideal, would rather prefer Cake would take care about it
> more dynamically.
> >
> > Anyway about the Steam IP addresses I've noticed, in the almost three
> weeks of testing, they're almost always the same IP blocks (most of which
> can be found on the Steam Support website, https://support.steampowered.
> com/kb_article.php?ref=8571-GLVN-8711). I believe it would be a good
> starting point for limiting Steam, what do you think?
> >
> > On 24 April 2017 at 09:55, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > > On Apr 23, 2017, at 14:32, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> > >
> > >>> About the per-host fairness download issue: while it's kinda
> resolved I still feel like it's mainly related to Steam, as normally
> downloading files from PC1 and PC2 halved the speed as expected even at
> full bandwidth (so no overhead, no -15%).
> > >>
> > >>      This might be true, but for cake to meaningfully resolve
> bufferbloat you absolutely _must_ take care to account for encapsulation
> and overhead one way or another.
> > >
> > > well, one way to account for this overhead is to set the allowed
> bandwidth low enough. Being precise on this overhead lets you get closer to
> the actual line rate, but if you have enough bandwidth, it may not really
> matter (i.e. if you have a 100Mb connection and only get 70Mb out of it,
> you probably won't notice unless you go looking)
> >
> >         Violent agreement. But note that with AAL5’s rule to always use
> an integer number of ATM cells per user packet the required bandwidth
> sacrifice to statically cover the worst case gets ludicrous (theoretical
> worst case: requiring 2 53 byte ATM cells for on 49 Byte data packet: 100 *
> 49 / (53 * 2) = 46.2% and this is on top of any potential unaccounted
> overhead inside the 49 Byte packet). Luckily the ATM padding issue is not
> as severe for bigger packets… but still to statically fully solve
> modem/dslam bufferbloat the required bandwidth sacrifice seems excessive…
> But again you are right, there might be users who do not mind to go to this
> length. For this reason I occasionally recommend to start the bandwidth at
> 50% to certainly rule out overhead/encapsulation accounting issues (mind
> you take 50% as starting point from which to ramp up…)
> >
> > Best Regards
> >         Sebastian.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > David Lang
> >
> >
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5937 bytes --]