From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::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 F2A023B29E for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id r190so71433391wme.1 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 11:29:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=X2CSQC2PBtDubx1uEq/srykyn8bbaw0D/viL6D6gnFg=; b=kIvrPQFpgL2TJrXExTIllXwOdL9ih5VGexy1GITBMszt350aq83doN20mB7ly4XaKG QxXg0wBSjQtKKd9EL8JmukRVsfGpnUyUQZvh+TQsmrnVfyo9xxQWCq5OCxflyBYxxVxN yLcCKWfygjz0qPKfNMfQbDWOV9ghhnpixzzq56pSPaCmppOeiEL1bfwN7gpYquR5yRId NcRcBkNUvMV1baj0hHjQONMiZZzyEGKRROiBc16mDwMM5sM2WHjOx/MDS4mT0Bl8Udnp +v4cQxSHZ/g4WYp8Zek0orRaiGu31IWcfctx8h0iXFVOjOdkcLMyX9WbxSKtVa9Hya71 zScg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=X2CSQC2PBtDubx1uEq/srykyn8bbaw0D/viL6D6gnFg=; b=qAQ2HEBfT1vsMPfQpeMptbCgvcPxoyjGRYjWKV2xKKUnpWPs7IEPVHQOfN1AKC+hBF LsIFXsx/+20HGtWxsKSN68Sc21TC/7GUmZ6kcjJ29AH7tDACGuQA4Z/5xJjp5rVN0iRS uOU+kK5fp6VtANbfxJXBpd8E1Qp1D9vGw13Qgz0JzgNJ/69PR211+0pvtrMZX6mIw3iu GwSSvp24vhEJk25f4uSDkWI8FUpu6HUSe1Ym2Hpgb7MOgczmqM2XTxhgSG8oF61mRTH9 UrZjytM7lyms+Y3hqS4oSo1LUCCb9bpjagnjWFmeP1kZVXbY0P1nRbYqVK+KdKXJGscI Nh4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/70mQTVMF+Bnldvs59ITP7Qsq3a0tj4O0P7h28WgGPUu+YbaqjD q1BlGHjJ6CDhag== X-Received: by 10.28.100.137 with SMTP id y131mr2273851wmb.76.1493490565085; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 11:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (185.182.7.51.dyn.plus.net. [51.7.182.185]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k4sm7783291wmf.12.2017.04.29.11.29.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 29 Apr 2017 11:29:24 -0700 (PDT) To: Jonathan Morton Cc: Dendari Marini , Benjamin Cronce , cake@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <0BA3EE91-C5BC-4155-9D5D-D15D34490A1A@gmx.de> <00DDAA0B-7D99-489B-BA2D-1F20289409B3@gmx.de> <2FFBF256-2932-4FC7-AD1F-0D7CEE111809@gmx.de> <3fbfd0ee-7b41-0f83-8b44-ce7eed6a0562@gmail.com> <09DB0D8E-F63C-4126-8608-9EACDE99D2F1@gmail.com> <64b0e940-84ae-e75c-0ddb-10e60452c59a@gmail.com> <3FA974FA-E306-42FC-9CBD-0F5B5F8CABED@gmail.com> From: Andy Furniss Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 19:29:23 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0 SeaMonkey/2.51a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3FA974FA-E306-42FC-9CBD-0F5B5F8CABED@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Cake] Getting Cake to work better with Steam and similar applications 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: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 18:29:26 -0000 Jonathan Morton wrote: > >> On 29 Apr, 2017, at 18:11, Andy Furniss >> wrote: >> >> With the ingress param shaping at 1mbit 5 tcps (cubic or bbr) >> really destroys latency. >> >> With the caveat that my test may be flawed, I am currently >> suspecting that cake cobalt head + ingress param and a low rate is >> buggy. > > That’s odd, since I’m currently dogfooding it at 512Kbit, and it > works fine like that. Not to the point of wanting to play online > games while torrenting and downloading Steam updates, but that sort > of limitation comes with the territory. > > With a game updater that uses *80* web-seeds simultaneously (a > libtorrent quirk which should get patched in the next version), I can > still reliably use my Web browser and e-mail on a second machine; > these are things that start to fail intermittently over about 2 > seconds RTT, and I’ve measured this ISP at 45 seconds without > modification. > > The key thing to remember is that in ingress mode, you *must* reduce > the shaped rate to some (large) fraction of the bottleneck link, > otherwise it won’t control the queue at all. For example, I’m > reasonably sure my current link is dumb-shaped to 576Kbit at the ISP. > The smaller the fraction, the better the control of latency Cake can > achieve. > > This is in contrast to egress mode, where you want to match the link > capacity as closely as possible to get maximum performance; latency > control remains ideal as long as you never actually *exceed* the true > link capacity. It was a rather artificial test with cake set at 1mbit behind hfsc at 18mbit - just trying to recreate one of Dendari's tests. With the ingress parameter latency was hurt quite badly compared to without, which was unexpected. There were a lot of drops - but it seemed like they were hurting the ping flow. Putting ping into voice didn't help.