From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2630B21F721 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle.home.lan ([93.194.233.219]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MOfQw-1XTRWv3usw-0069iy; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:25:16 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:25:14 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <11CF384A-59DD-4352-B8EA-F2F714182AF9@gmx.de> References: To: Aaron Wood X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:YoaVCLzauz4PooWVLbuMnsc9f6TCpAWnoYz2uInbJblWtV+dBby 4g9KP8ksLrC0VIUEdfbWV6sQlJ8ocJT+0FX0FALdq/X9bph7JAumDDuhpTuhnm6ITS3hBCC 4+IvyaLPexFqvi3fMtOkjQ+w3bDw+l/B0YzLTM1ovEK72b7AsDld9sxC1qj7XhVVejpJQXv NCyo77VHkcT9s2s3MyV2w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: cerowrt-devel , bloat Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] Comcast upped service levels -> WNDR3800 can't cope... X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:25:21 -0000 Hi Aaron, On Aug 29, 2014, at 18:57 , Aaron Wood wrote: > Comcast has upped the download rates in my area, from 50Mbps to = 100Mbps. This morning I tried to find the limit of the WNDR3800. And I = found it. 50Mbps is still well within capabilities, 100Mbps isn't. >=20 > And as I've seen Dave say previously, it's right around 80Mbps total = (download + upload). >=20 > = http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-comcast-speeds-new-cerowrt-sqm= .html >=20 > I tried disabling downstream shaping to see what the result was, and = it wasn't pretty. You could try to set the interface to 100Mbps with ethtool and = exercise cerowrt BQL implementation a bit ;) > I also tried using the "simplest.qos" script, and that didn't really = gain me anything, so I went back to the simple.qos script (those results = aren't included above). >=20 > It looks like it's definitely time for a new router platform (for me). >=20 > Or, we need to find a way to implement the system such that it doesn't = max out a 680MHz mips core just to push 100Mbps of data. That's roughly = 10K cpu cycles per packet, which seems like an awful lot. Unless the = other problem is that the memory bus just can't keep up. My experience = of a lot of these processors is that the low-level offload engines have = great DMA capabilities for "wire-speed" operation, but that the = processor core itself can't move data to save it's life. Could you try simplest.qos and replace HTB with TBF? We still do = not know whether there is a cheaper option than HTB that still works = okay-ish (I only have 16D 2U, so can not easily test myself). I guess = that TBF is just as expensive as HTB since both shaw more or less the = same token bucket algorithm... >=20 > What's the limit of the EdgeRouter Lite? I think this tops out at ~ 80-90Mbps combined, but there is no = BQL yet. Given the price of tho unit it would be really nice if that = would work for the 150-200Mbps combined that seem to be needed in the = near future. >=20 > Or should I start looking for something like this: >=20 > http://www.gateworks.com/product/item/ventana-gw5310-network-processor >=20 > (although that's an expensive board, given the very low production = volume, for the same cost I could probably build a small = passively-cooled mini/micro-atx setup running x86 and dual NICs). >=20 > -Aaron > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat