From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (lang.hm [66.167.227.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCB393B29E for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 13:36:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-laptop ([10.2.0.162]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id v42HaobU014220; Tue, 2 May 2017 10:36:50 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 10:36:49 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang-laptop To: Nils Andreas Svee cc: erik.taraldsen@telenor.com, cake@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <1493727080.1510042.962956680.40220FCB@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: References: <1493397540.4184.959563328.3AB236CD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1493721285271.28909@telenor.com> <1493727080.1510042.962956680.40220FCB@webmail.messagingengine.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.1 (DEB 209 2017-03-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cake] Recomended HW to run cake and fq_codel? 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, 02 May 2017 17:36:58 -0000 not having to have cake try to control the ingress also drastically reduces the cpu load. so if you can put AQM on your end of the link (just about any aqm, even simple fq_codel), there is a huge win. David Lang On Tue, 2 May 2017, Nils Andreas Svee wrote: > Kinda surprising that the plain ER-X isn't readily available. I know > Dustin used to have them, but they're out of stock. Both of them will do > just fine, but I'd probably pick the ER-X-SFP for the beefier CPU, if > only to get some extra headroom. Mind the ER-X only have 256 MB RAM and > 256 MB flash, if that matters to you. > > DSL tends to suck pretty (read: very) bad without proper shaping, I > know. On that note, are you planning to run an AQM on both ends of the > bottleneck, or shape ingress traffic via a IFB device? CAKE helps a lot > when running on ingress, but it can't come close to running on both > ends. > > Best Regards > Nils > > On Tue, May 2, 2017, at 12:34, erik.taraldsen@telenor.com wrote: >> I'm actually most interested in how this works on low bandwidth accesses. >> Typicaly, what can we as an ISP do to make ADSL and VDSL less sucky for >> our customers. So an Edge Router PoE-5 1) or the X sfp 2) would be a >> good platform for this? (Don't need the PoE or sfp, but it's the easiest >> accessible version here in Norway). >> >> Nils, very good of you to keep such packages precompiled! That will save >> me a lot of time. >> >> >> 1) >> https://www.komplett.no/product/867933/datautstyr/nettverk/routere/ubiquiti-edgerouter-5-port-poe >> 2) >> https://www.komplett.no/product/898813/datautstyr/nettverk/routere/ubiquiti-edgerouter-x-sfp# >> >> -Erik >> >> ________________________________________ >> Fra: Lochnair >> Sendt: 28. april 2017 18:39 >> Til: Taraldsen Erik >> Kopi: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net >> Emne: Re: [Cake] Recomended HW to run cake and fq_codel? >> >> Hi Erik >> >> I can't speak for what's "recommended" hardware for running CAKE on, but >> from experience I can say that CAKE runs quite well on the EdgeRouters. >> The EdgeRouter platform does not have CAKE support built-in, so I >> maintain pre-compiled binaries here: >> https://community.ubnt.com/topic/239619/cake-and-fq-pie-compiled-for-the-edgerouter-devices/1 >> >> In terms of expected performance, I've seen tests on the ER-Lite come >> out at about ~80Mb/20Mb on a 200Mb/20Mb link. I've not been able to do >> any "perf" runs on it myself, as my only one is in production. I don't >> have an ER-X, but one of the guys on the UBNT forum claimed to get >> ~120-140 Mbit symmetric on the ER-X model. >> >> Best Regards >> Nils >> > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake