From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x236.google.com (mail-oi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236]) (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 4DE7A3B25E for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p136so11401592oic.1 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:42:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=Xq/CnfkyTMBFLFaFaW57ehjmT+Gcslw66EI0/bE2EsQ=; b=F7wgaFdO23SPoI4+mXs/FiJeitUR1HthlxXrPGuBuQioMrJ4Ux6VQU0i+ZCP+2HzPf o9tG6WCJdjoWmys6HUQbmq++KjEvM9ytalb7AAdrGicJpieXHz++vGVhvbJTRkWvsZp8 mxowEOcf9qrRO2ly4mS9WBjeqe9erUwBZLymmScwNcAaZW6bPK9LMJs/QB1FtEAKQGqv 6Dgw5ZP9VLrYqwvKzhlW0o9ZSg4yAZaCvCogyR5h0RKHK6w1ZxWiTpG+TIBoOUeZuug8 U9b7Y7PI6Pn49T48TIHQFMaAS6nbwE2WocasSq8nB+QycOncoHnHCmIqCKLR9VyguiW7 Rpgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Xq/CnfkyTMBFLFaFaW57ehjmT+Gcslw66EI0/bE2EsQ=; b=dRx8luL5jNjIhTd9NhOOMcGBgwtsyxeY2qspFWf03iMWbne18x+33WIZKif6aId6p1 ZGvo98C+ff/y4NGDo29o2gMSGZ9VWOXZv2qhEGXAdaOMMRdjSdCTxuz8CLj2DETsXl8t GhTB9VYLErBsYy00wWiTiJeZU56PGXjJ0gTZIi2sGhVv3zr0eOzvpfuPCDZTR8eh0TD3 JZuXmND3M6QuGNorCjU96njxFPAiqbzPoM0SrcjkZt8tYLybJXFWfTw0WXGP7MtPgjxH El+0BRAtYqYBeI7fkXLRyN1RSw4gXFa3MhUNjwputiy0Ndjg/c43myTq6Zg8xjybMX+2 QNQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvf+tjLhh7ssFGEkAIVCTkW9d9BaN8rIEdgSbQB49r7mepVLu382HkEyX/nL2ao6vw== X-Received: by 10.107.143.72 with SMTP id r69mr7379806iod.164.1477586535560; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.21.63.50] (hades.kettering.edu. [192.138.137.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k140sm3182854iok.33.2016.10.27.09.42.15 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT) To: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <758C5432-757C-4CFA-BA20-48F6B6D32839@yahoo.com> <0FA74BC3-33E0-4CF8-B134-B688EA0A4DBB@yahoo.com> From: Noah Causin Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:42:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------269390D8F4993319802E218F" Subject: Re: [Cake] WAN ingress rate with concurrent downloads 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: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:42:16 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------269390D8F4993319802E218F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I notice this behavior as well. I believe it is the fact that SQM is not the true bottleneck. Senders continue to increase their transfer rate until active queue management on your router causes them to slow down. If I watch LEDE's built-in realtime traffic graphs, I do see incoming rates higher than the set limit. On 10/27/2016 2:41 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Could you set the ingress shaper to 50% of you true ingress rate and > try again, please? > Also could you post the results of 'tc -d qdisc' with your current > settings and with the 50% settings (I will probably ask for more > data...)? And finally I believe you are on an ADSL link, what are the > sync rates reported by the modem, and which ISP are you with (I ask, > as some ISPs actually employ a shaper at their BRAS, so the modem sync > rate might not be the actual bottleneck bandwidth). That said, with > wrong shaper settings I would rather expect increased latency under > load, but not bandwidth violations. > > Best Regards > Sebastian > > On October 27, 2016 2:16:06 AM GMT+02:00, "G. Amanakis" > wrote: > > I mean that the ingress limit on WAN (or egress limit on LAN) > seems to be ignored, and the rate bmon and bwm-ng report is the > maximum achievable. I.e. on 450kbyte/s ingress with the limit set > at 400kbyte/s, when bittorrent is in use bmon reports 450kbyte/s > after 10-20 seconds. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake > > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake --------------269390D8F4993319802E218F Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I notice this behavior as well.  I believe it is the fact that SQM is not the true bottleneck.  Senders continue to increase their transfer rate until active queue management on your router causes them to slow down.

If I watch LEDE's built-in realtime traffic graphs, I do see incoming rates higher than the set limit.


On 10/27/2016 2:41 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
Could you set the ingress shaper to 50% of you true ingress rate and try again, please?
Also could you post the results of 'tc -d qdisc' with your current settings and with the 50% settings (I will probably ask for more data...)? And finally I believe you are on an ADSL link, what are the sync rates reported by the modem, and which ISP are you with (I ask, as some ISPs actually employ a shaper at their BRAS, so the modem sync rate might not be the actual bottleneck bandwidth). That said, with wrong shaper settings I would rather expect increased latency under load, but not bandwidth violations.

Best Regards
Sebastian

On October 27, 2016 2:16:06 AM GMT+02:00, "G. Amanakis" <g_amanakis@yahoo.com> wrote:
I mean that the ingress limit on WAN (or egress limit on LAN) seems to be ignored, and the rate bmon and bwm-ng report is the maximum achievable. I.e. on 450kbyte/s ingress with the limit set at 400kbyte/s, when bittorrent is in use bmon reports 450kbyte/s after 10-20 seconds. 

Cake mailing list
Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake

_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
--------------269390D8F4993319802E218F--