Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released
@ 2014-04-05 20:18 Dave Taht
  2014-04-06  0:02 ` Chuck Anderson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dave Taht @ 2014-04-05 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cerowrt-devel

+ openwrt merge
++ fix for dhcpv6 renew problem
+ actually tested for an hour so far on 5.4ghz, with a us countrycode
and wpa+psk enabled...

Get it at:

http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-1/

but: there isn't much other reason to upgrade to this...

- no progress on the wifi bug - but I am beating up wifi with a variety of
devices and scripts today hoping to make it fail, and bringing up a
bunch more tomorrow.

- toke's script relies on stratum '16' changing, and it doesn't with openwrt's
ntp, it seems....



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released
  2014-04-05 20:18 [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released Dave Taht
@ 2014-04-06  0:02 ` Chuck Anderson
  2014-04-06  0:08   ` Chuck Anderson
  2014-04-06  0:51   ` Dave Taht
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chuck Anderson @ 2014-04-06  0:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cerowrt-devel

Here are some betterspeedtest.sh results for 3.10.36-1:

First, without SQM enabled:

root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh 
Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
............................................................
 Download:  52.39 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 15.281 
    10pct: 18.302 
   Median: 28.502 
      Avg: 32.891 
    90pct: 56.776 
      Max: 74.282
.............................................................
   Upload:  11.07 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 15.341 
    10pct: 18.669 
   Median: 82.480 
      Avg: 126.662 
    90pct: 248.102 
      Max: 278.644

And now, with SQM set to 80% up/down numbers from above:

root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh 
Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
............................................................
 Download:  32.84 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 15.623 
    10pct: 16.077 
   Median: 17.634 
      Avg: 17.982 
    90pct: 19.653 
      Max: 23.272
.............................................................
   Upload:  8.25 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 16.001 
    10pct: 17.623 
   Median: 19.796 
      Avg: 19.820 
    90pct: 21.716 
      Max: 23.228
root@cerowrt:~# 


On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
> + openwrt merge
> ++ fix for dhcpv6 renew problem
> + actually tested for an hour so far on 5.4ghz, with a us countrycode
> and wpa+psk enabled...
> 
> Get it at:
> 
> http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-1/
> 
> but: there isn't much other reason to upgrade to this...
> 
> - no progress on the wifi bug - but I am beating up wifi with a variety of
> devices and scripts today hoping to make it fail, and bringing up a
> bunch more tomorrow.
> 
> - toke's script relies on stratum '16' changing, and it doesn't with openwrt's
> ntp, it seems....

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released
  2014-04-06  0:02 ` Chuck Anderson
@ 2014-04-06  0:08   ` Chuck Anderson
  2014-04-06  0:57     ` Dave Taht
  2014-04-06  0:51   ` Dave Taht
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chuck Anderson @ 2014-04-06  0:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cerowrt-devel

And IPv6 over the HE tunnel:

root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh -H netperf6.richb-hanover.com
Testing against netperf6.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
............................................................................
 Download:  21.56 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 77 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 14.477 
    10pct: 15.469 
   Median: 17.646 
      Avg: 18.906 
    90pct: 23.540 
      Max: 36.302
............................................................................
   Upload:  5.85 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 14.589 
    10pct: 15.579 
   Median: 18.156 
      Avg: 18.323 
    90pct: 21.192 
      Max: 25.282


On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:02:37PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> Here are some betterspeedtest.sh results for 3.10.36-1:
> 
> First, without SQM enabled:
> 
> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh 
> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> ............................................................
>  Download:  52.39 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 15.281 
>     10pct: 18.302 
>    Median: 28.502 
>       Avg: 32.891 
>     90pct: 56.776 
>       Max: 74.282
> .............................................................
>    Upload:  11.07 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 15.341 
>     10pct: 18.669 
>    Median: 82.480 
>       Avg: 126.662 
>     90pct: 248.102 
>       Max: 278.644
> 
> And now, with SQM set to 80% up/down numbers from above:
> 
> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh 
> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> ............................................................
>  Download:  32.84 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 15.623 
>     10pct: 16.077 
>    Median: 17.634 
>       Avg: 17.982 
>     90pct: 19.653 
>       Max: 23.272
> .............................................................
>    Upload:  8.25 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 16.001 
>     10pct: 17.623 
>    Median: 19.796 
>       Avg: 19.820 
>     90pct: 21.716 
>       Max: 23.228
> root@cerowrt:~# 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
> > + openwrt merge
> > ++ fix for dhcpv6 renew problem
> > + actually tested for an hour so far on 5.4ghz, with a us countrycode
> > and wpa+psk enabled...
> > 
> > Get it at:
> > 
> > http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-1/
> > 
> > but: there isn't much other reason to upgrade to this...
> > 
> > - no progress on the wifi bug - but I am beating up wifi with a variety of
> > devices and scripts today hoping to make it fail, and bringing up a
> > bunch more tomorrow.
> > 
> > - toke's script relies on stratum '16' changing, and it doesn't with openwrt's
> > ntp, it seems....

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released
  2014-04-06  0:02 ` Chuck Anderson
  2014-04-06  0:08   ` Chuck Anderson
@ 2014-04-06  0:51   ` Dave Taht
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dave Taht @ 2014-04-06  0:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cerowrt-devel

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> wrote:
> Here are some betterspeedtest.sh results for 3.10.36-1:
>
> First, without SQM enabled:
>
> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> ............................................................
>  Download:  52.39 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 15.281
>     10pct: 18.302
>    Median: 28.502
>       Avg: 32.891
>     90pct: 56.776
>       Max: 74.282
> .............................................................
>    Upload:  11.07 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 15.341
>     10pct: 18.669
>    Median: 82.480
>       Avg: 126.662
>     90pct: 248.102
>       Max: 278.644
>
> And now, with SQM set to 80% up/down numbers from above:
>
> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> ............................................................
>  Download:  32.84 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 15.623
>     10pct: 16.077
>    Median: 17.634
>       Avg: 17.982
>     90pct: 19.653
>       Max: 23.272
> .............................................................
>    Upload:  8.25 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 16.001
>     10pct: 17.623
>    Median: 19.796
>       Avg: 19.820
>     90pct: 21.716
>       Max: 23.228
> root@cerowrt:~#

I think we are establishing that you can set downloads to above the
measured value at above 22mbit. Please try again with download 60000,
and pick another number for uploads higher than 80%.

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
>> + openwrt merge
>> ++ fix for dhcpv6 renew problem
>> + actually tested for an hour so far on 5.4ghz, with a us countrycode
>> and wpa+psk enabled...
>>
>> Get it at:
>>
>> http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-1/
>>
>> but: there isn't much other reason to upgrade to this...
>>
>> - no progress on the wifi bug - but I am beating up wifi with a variety of
>> devices and scripts today hoping to make it fail, and bringing up a
>> bunch more tomorrow.
>>
>> - toke's script relies on stratum '16' changing, and it doesn't with openwrt's
>> ntp, it seems....
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released
  2014-04-06  0:08   ` Chuck Anderson
@ 2014-04-06  0:57     ` Dave Taht
  2014-04-06  4:48       ` Chuck Anderson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dave Taht @ 2014-04-06  0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cerowrt-devel

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> wrote:
> And IPv6 over the HE tunnel:
>
> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh -H netperf6.richb-hanover.com
> Testing against netperf6.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> ............................................................................
>  Download:  21.56 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 77 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 14.477
>     10pct: 15.469
>    Median: 17.646
>       Avg: 18.906
>     90pct: 23.540
>       Max: 36.302
> ............................................................................
>    Upload:  5.85 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 14.589
>     10pct: 15.579
>    Median: 18.156
>       Avg: 18.323
>     90pct: 21.192
>       Max: 25.282

That's pretty lame compared to your ipv4 results, but the length of
the path looks the same... puzzling... How much further (or less far)
is rich's box (traceroute6 -n netperf6.richb-hanover.com) on ipv6 vs
ipv4 (traceroute -n )

I have certainly seen bottlenecks, excessive delay, and packet loss on
he's gateways.

An "mtr" might be revealing during the test for spotting packet loss
further on the path.

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:02:37PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>> Here are some betterspeedtest.sh results for 3.10.36-1:
>>
>> First, without SQM enabled:
>>
>> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
>> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
>> ............................................................
>>  Download:  52.39 Mbps
>>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>       Min: 15.281
>>     10pct: 18.302
>>    Median: 28.502
>>       Avg: 32.891
>>     90pct: 56.776
>>       Max: 74.282
>> .............................................................
>>    Upload:  11.07 Mbps
>>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>       Min: 15.341
>>     10pct: 18.669
>>    Median: 82.480
>>       Avg: 126.662
>>     90pct: 248.102
>>       Max: 278.644
>>
>> And now, with SQM set to 80% up/down numbers from above:
>>
>> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
>> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
>> ............................................................
>>  Download:  32.84 Mbps
>>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>       Min: 15.623
>>     10pct: 16.077
>>    Median: 17.634
>>       Avg: 17.982
>>     90pct: 19.653
>>       Max: 23.272
>> .............................................................
>>    Upload:  8.25 Mbps
>>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>       Min: 16.001
>>     10pct: 17.623
>>    Median: 19.796
>>       Avg: 19.820
>>     90pct: 21.716
>>       Max: 23.228
>> root@cerowrt:~#
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
>> > + openwrt merge
>> > ++ fix for dhcpv6 renew problem
>> > + actually tested for an hour so far on 5.4ghz, with a us countrycode
>> > and wpa+psk enabled...
>> >
>> > Get it at:
>> >
>> > http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-1/
>> >
>> > but: there isn't much other reason to upgrade to this...
>> >
>> > - no progress on the wifi bug - but I am beating up wifi with a variety of
>> > devices and scripts today hoping to make it fail, and bringing up a
>> > bunch more tomorrow.
>> >
>> > - toke's script relies on stratum '16' changing, and it doesn't with openwrt's
>> > ntp, it seems....
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released
  2014-04-06  0:57     ` Dave Taht
@ 2014-04-06  4:48       ` Chuck Anderson
  2014-04-06 21:44         ` Dave Taht
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chuck Anderson @ 2014-04-06  4:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cerowrt-devel

On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 05:57:44PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> wrote:
> > And IPv6 over the HE tunnel:
> >
> > root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh -H netperf6.richb-hanover.com
> > Testing against netperf6.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> > ............................................................................
> >  Download:  21.56 Mbps
> >   Latency: (in msec, 77 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> >       Min: 14.477
> >     10pct: 15.469
> >    Median: 17.646
> >       Avg: 18.906
> >     90pct: 23.540
> >       Max: 36.302
> > ............................................................................
> >    Upload:  5.85 Mbps
> >   Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> >       Min: 14.589
> >     10pct: 15.579
> >    Median: 18.156
> >       Avg: 18.323
> >     90pct: 21.192
> >       Max: 25.282
> 
> That's pretty lame compared to your ipv4 results, but the length of
> the path looks the same... puzzling... How much further (or less far)
> is rich's box (traceroute6 -n netperf6.richb-hanover.com) on ipv6 vs
> ipv4 (traceroute -n )

Without any testing going on:

                             My traceroute  [v0.82]
a (::)                                                 Sun Apr  6 00:35:55 2014
Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit
                                       Packets               Pings
 Host                                Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
 1. 2001:470:89c6:3::1                0.0%    25    1.7   1.7   1.4   3.4   0.4
 2. canderson-2.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.i  0.0%    25   25.3  22.5  20.6  27.6   1.5
 3. ge3-8.core1.nyc4.he.net           0.0%    25   17.2  21.1  16.0  37.6   5.3
 4. 100ge5-1.core1.ash1.he.net        0.0%    25   25.2  25.7  21.4  34.9   3.7
 5. xe-0.equinix.asbnva01.us.bb.gin. 33.3%    25   32.7  25.1  22.2  32.7   2.7
 6. ae-6.r20.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.  0.0%    25   24.0  27.3  22.5  41.3   5.0
 7. ae-3.r04.atlnga05.us.bb.gin.ntt.  0.0%    25   43.9  40.4  36.7  53.3   4.5
 8. xe-0-1-0-17.r04.atlnga05.us.ce.g  0.0%    25   47.8  41.5  35.7  50.3   4.5
 9. ???
10. 2604:180::65be:a189               0.0%    24   37.7  37.9  35.8  40.1   1.3


                             My traceroute  [v0.82]
a (0.0.0.0)                                            Sun Apr  6 00:37:12 2014
Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit
                                       Packets               Pings
 Host                                Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
 1. 172.30.42.65                      0.0%    26    1.5   1.6   1.3   5.7   0.8
 2. ???
 3. te-0-0-0-11-sur02.woburn.ma.bost  0.0%    25   25.1  11.0   8.8  25.1   3.4
 4. be-62-ar01.needham.ma.boston.com  0.0%    25   87.9  65.4  10.4 684.5 168.8
 5. he-2-7-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone  0.0%    25   15.7  19.9  15.7  27.6   2.9
 6. ???
 7. ae3.nyc32.ip4.tinet.net           0.0%    25   28.6  23.2  16.0  49.7   9.1
 8. xe-4-3-0.atl11.ip4.tinet.net      0.0%    25   50.3  49.3  46.4  66.2   4.7
 9. ramnode-gw.ip4.tinet.net          0.0%    25   47.0  50.9  46.8  58.7   3.8
10. ???
11. 23.226.232.80                     0.0%    25   47.8  48.6  46.8  57.2   2.2


> 
> I have certainly seen bottlenecks, excessive delay, and packet loss on
> he's gateways.
> 
> An "mtr" might be revealing during the test for spotting packet loss
> further on the path.

SQM is now set to 60000/10000.

During the IPv6 test:

                             My traceroute  [v0.82]
a (::)                                                 Sun Apr  6 00:41:12 2014
Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit
                                       Packets               Pings
 Host                                Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
 1. 2001:470:89c6:3::1                0.0%   138    2.7   1.8   1.2  17.7   1.4
 2. canderson-2.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.i  0.0%   138   22.9  25.2  20.0  62.9   5.2
 3. ge3-8.core1.nyc4.he.net           0.0%   137   22.5  25.0  16.2 143.6  11.9
 4. 100ge5-1.core1.ash1.he.net        0.0%   137   22.6  29.0  21.2  72.7   7.1
 5. xe-0.equinix.asbnva01.us.bb.gin. 40.1%   137   25.7  31.1  22.4 147.9  16.6
 6. ae-6.r20.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.  0.0%   137   22.9  29.5  22.1  72.0   8.2
 7. ae-3.r04.atlnga05.us.bb.gin.ntt. 11.7%   137   37.1  41.4  36.2  74.5   5.4
 8. xe-0-1-0-17.r04.atlnga05.us.ce.g  0.0%   137   39.9  43.6  35.8  79.9   6.8
 9. ???
10. 2604:180::65be:a189               0.0%   137   36.6  41.1  36.0  59.8   4.5


root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh -H netperf6.richb-hanover.com
Testing against netperf6.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
..........................................................................
 Download:  27.2 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 14.666 
    10pct: 15.606 
   Median: 18.254 
      Avg: 21.101 
    90pct: 29.038 
      Max: 55.143
...........................................................................
   Upload:  6.57 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 14.753 
    10pct: 15.233 
   Median: 17.599 
      Avg: 17.591 
    90pct: 19.674 
      Max: 24.718

IPv4 test:

root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh 
Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
............................................................
 Download:  46.11 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 16.011 
    10pct: 16.463 
   Median: 19.134 
      Avg: 19.743 
    90pct: 22.525 
      Max: 28.650
............................................................
.   Upload:  8.97 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 16.214 
    10pct: 16.904 
   Median: 19.154 
      Avg: 19.151 
    90pct: 20.989 
      Max: 22.683

> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:02:37PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> >> Here are some betterspeedtest.sh results for 3.10.36-1:
> >>
> >> First, without SQM enabled:
> >>
> >> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
> >> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> >> ............................................................
> >>  Download:  52.39 Mbps
> >>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> >>       Min: 15.281
> >>     10pct: 18.302
> >>    Median: 28.502
> >>       Avg: 32.891
> >>     90pct: 56.776
> >>       Max: 74.282
> >> .............................................................
> >>    Upload:  11.07 Mbps
> >>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> >>       Min: 15.341
> >>     10pct: 18.669
> >>    Median: 82.480
> >>       Avg: 126.662
> >>     90pct: 248.102
> >>       Max: 278.644
> >>
> >> And now, with SQM set to 80% up/down numbers from above:
> >>
> >> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
> >> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> >> ............................................................
> >>  Download:  32.84 Mbps
> >>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> >>       Min: 15.623
> >>     10pct: 16.077
> >>    Median: 17.634
> >>       Avg: 17.982
> >>     90pct: 19.653
> >>       Max: 23.272
> >> .............................................................
> >>    Upload:  8.25 Mbps
> >>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> >>       Min: 16.001
> >>     10pct: 17.623
> >>    Median: 19.796
> >>       Avg: 19.820
> >>     90pct: 21.716
> >>       Max: 23.228
> >> root@cerowrt:~#
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
> >> > + openwrt merge
> >> > ++ fix for dhcpv6 renew problem
> >> > + actually tested for an hour so far on 5.4ghz, with a us countrycode
> >> > and wpa+psk enabled...
> >> >
> >> > Get it at:
> >> >
> >> > http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-1/
> >> >
> >> > but: there isn't much other reason to upgrade to this...
> >> >
> >> > - no progress on the wifi bug - but I am beating up wifi with a variety of
> >> > devices and scripts today hoping to make it fail, and bringing up a
> >> > bunch more tomorrow.
> >> >
> >> > - toke's script relies on stratum '16' changing, and it doesn't with openwrt's
> >> > ntp, it seems....

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released
  2014-04-06  4:48       ` Chuck Anderson
@ 2014-04-06 21:44         ` Dave Taht
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Dave Taht @ 2014-04-06 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cerowrt-devel

While mtr is at best an unreliable measurement, your data certainly
points to problems on the ipv6 portion of the path leading to your
reduced ipv6 throughput figures.

You might want to find another he gateway closer to you to use, or
one better connected. he has pretty good forums if you'd like to engage
them there...


On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 05:57:44PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> wrote:
>> > And IPv6 over the HE tunnel:
>> >
>> > root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh -H netperf6.richb-hanover.com
>> > Testing against netperf6.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
>> > ............................................................................
>> >  Download:  21.56 Mbps
>> >   Latency: (in msec, 77 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>> >       Min: 14.477
>> >     10pct: 15.469
>> >    Median: 17.646
>> >       Avg: 18.906
>> >     90pct: 23.540
>> >       Max: 36.302
>> > ............................................................................
>> >    Upload:  5.85 Mbps
>> >   Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>> >       Min: 14.589
>> >     10pct: 15.579
>> >    Median: 18.156
>> >       Avg: 18.323
>> >     90pct: 21.192
>> >       Max: 25.282
>>
>> That's pretty lame compared to your ipv4 results, but the length of
>> the path looks the same... puzzling... How much further (or less far)
>> is rich's box (traceroute6 -n netperf6.richb-hanover.com) on ipv6 vs
>> ipv4 (traceroute -n )
>
> Without any testing going on:
>
>                              My traceroute  [v0.82]
> a (::)                                                 Sun Apr  6 00:35:55 2014
> Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit
>                                        Packets               Pings
>  Host                                Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
>  1. 2001:470:89c6:3::1                0.0%    25    1.7   1.7   1.4   3.4   0.4
>  2. canderson-2.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.i  0.0%    25   25.3  22.5  20.6  27.6   1.5
>  3. ge3-8.core1.nyc4.he.net           0.0%    25   17.2  21.1  16.0  37.6   5.3
>  4. 100ge5-1.core1.ash1.he.net        0.0%    25   25.2  25.7  21.4  34.9   3.7
>  5. xe-0.equinix.asbnva01.us.bb.gin. 33.3%    25   32.7  25.1  22.2  32.7   2.7
>  6. ae-6.r20.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.  0.0%    25   24.0  27.3  22.5  41.3   5.0
>  7. ae-3.r04.atlnga05.us.bb.gin.ntt.  0.0%    25   43.9  40.4  36.7  53.3   4.5
>  8. xe-0-1-0-17.r04.atlnga05.us.ce.g  0.0%    25   47.8  41.5  35.7  50.3   4.5
>  9. ???
> 10. 2604:180::65be:a189               0.0%    24   37.7  37.9  35.8  40.1   1.3
>
>
>                              My traceroute  [v0.82]
> a (0.0.0.0)                                            Sun Apr  6 00:37:12 2014
> Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit
>                                        Packets               Pings
>  Host                                Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
>  1. 172.30.42.65                      0.0%    26    1.5   1.6   1.3   5.7   0.8
>  2. ???
>  3. te-0-0-0-11-sur02.woburn.ma.bost  0.0%    25   25.1  11.0   8.8  25.1   3.4
>  4. be-62-ar01.needham.ma.boston.com  0.0%    25   87.9  65.4  10.4 684.5 168.8
>  5. he-2-7-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone  0.0%    25   15.7  19.9  15.7  27.6   2.9
>  6. ???
>  7. ae3.nyc32.ip4.tinet.net           0.0%    25   28.6  23.2  16.0  49.7   9.1
>  8. xe-4-3-0.atl11.ip4.tinet.net      0.0%    25   50.3  49.3  46.4  66.2   4.7
>  9. ramnode-gw.ip4.tinet.net          0.0%    25   47.0  50.9  46.8  58.7   3.8
> 10. ???
> 11. 23.226.232.80                     0.0%    25   47.8  48.6  46.8  57.2   2.2
>
>
>>
>> I have certainly seen bottlenecks, excessive delay, and packet loss on
>> he's gateways.
>>
>> An "mtr" might be revealing during the test for spotting packet loss
>> further on the path.
>
> SQM is now set to 60000/10000.
>
> During the IPv6 test:
>
>                              My traceroute  [v0.82]
> a (::)                                                 Sun Apr  6 00:41:12 2014
> Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit
>                                        Packets               Pings
>  Host                                Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
>  1. 2001:470:89c6:3::1                0.0%   138    2.7   1.8   1.2  17.7   1.4
>  2. canderson-2.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.i  0.0%   138   22.9  25.2  20.0  62.9   5.2
>  3. ge3-8.core1.nyc4.he.net           0.0%   137   22.5  25.0  16.2 143.6  11.9
>  4. 100ge5-1.core1.ash1.he.net        0.0%   137   22.6  29.0  21.2  72.7   7.1
>  5. xe-0.equinix.asbnva01.us.bb.gin. 40.1%   137   25.7  31.1  22.4 147.9  16.6
>  6. ae-6.r20.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.  0.0%   137   22.9  29.5  22.1  72.0   8.2
>  7. ae-3.r04.atlnga05.us.bb.gin.ntt. 11.7%   137   37.1  41.4  36.2  74.5   5.4
>  8. xe-0-1-0-17.r04.atlnga05.us.ce.g  0.0%   137   39.9  43.6  35.8  79.9   6.8
>  9. ???
> 10. 2604:180::65be:a189               0.0%   137   36.6  41.1  36.0  59.8   4.5
>
>
> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh -H netperf6.richb-hanover.com
> Testing against netperf6.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> ..........................................................................
>  Download:  27.2 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 14.666
>     10pct: 15.606
>    Median: 18.254
>       Avg: 21.101
>     90pct: 29.038
>       Max: 55.143
> ...........................................................................
>    Upload:  6.57 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 14.753
>     10pct: 15.233
>    Median: 17.599
>       Avg: 17.591
>     90pct: 19.674
>       Max: 24.718
>
> IPv4 test:
>
> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> ............................................................
>  Download:  46.11 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 16.011
>     10pct: 16.463
>    Median: 19.134
>       Avg: 19.743
>     90pct: 22.525
>       Max: 28.650
> ............................................................
> .   Upload:  8.97 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 16.214
>     10pct: 16.904
>    Median: 19.154
>       Avg: 19.151
>     90pct: 20.989
>       Max: 22.683
>
>> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:02:37PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>> >> Here are some betterspeedtest.sh results for 3.10.36-1:
>> >>
>> >> First, without SQM enabled:
>> >>
>> >> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
>> >> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
>> >> ............................................................
>> >>  Download:  52.39 Mbps
>> >>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>> >>       Min: 15.281
>> >>     10pct: 18.302
>> >>    Median: 28.502
>> >>       Avg: 32.891
>> >>     90pct: 56.776
>> >>       Max: 74.282
>> >> .............................................................
>> >>    Upload:  11.07 Mbps
>> >>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>> >>       Min: 15.341
>> >>     10pct: 18.669
>> >>    Median: 82.480
>> >>       Avg: 126.662
>> >>     90pct: 248.102
>> >>       Max: 278.644
>> >>
>> >> And now, with SQM set to 80% up/down numbers from above:
>> >>
>> >> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
>> >> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
>> >> ............................................................
>> >>  Download:  32.84 Mbps
>> >>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>> >>       Min: 15.623
>> >>     10pct: 16.077
>> >>    Median: 17.634
>> >>       Avg: 17.982
>> >>     90pct: 19.653
>> >>       Max: 23.272
>> >> .............................................................
>> >>    Upload:  8.25 Mbps
>> >>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>> >>       Min: 16.001
>> >>     10pct: 17.623
>> >>    Median: 19.796
>> >>       Avg: 19.820
>> >>     90pct: 21.716
>> >>       Max: 23.228
>> >> root@cerowrt:~#
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
>> >> > + openwrt merge
>> >> > ++ fix for dhcpv6 renew problem
>> >> > + actually tested for an hour so far on 5.4ghz, with a us countrycode
>> >> > and wpa+psk enabled...
>> >> >
>> >> > Get it at:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-1/
>> >> >
>> >> > but: there isn't much other reason to upgrade to this...
>> >> >
>> >> > - no progress on the wifi bug - but I am beating up wifi with a variety of
>> >> > devices and scripts today hoping to make it fail, and bringing up a
>> >> > bunch more tomorrow.
>> >> >
>> >> > - toke's script relies on stratum '16' changing, and it doesn't with openwrt's
>> >> > ntp, it seems....
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2014-04-06 21:44 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-04-05 20:18 [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released Dave Taht
2014-04-06  0:02 ` Chuck Anderson
2014-04-06  0:08   ` Chuck Anderson
2014-04-06  0:57     ` Dave Taht
2014-04-06  4:48       ` Chuck Anderson
2014-04-06 21:44         ` Dave Taht
2014-04-06  0:51   ` Dave Taht

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox