From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from MAIL1.WPI.EDU (MAIL1.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.91]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF8421F2B9 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 21:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MAIL1.WPI.EDU (MAIL1.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.91]) by MAIL1.WPI.EDU (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s364mPQI026858 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 00:48:25 -0400 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 MAIL1.WPI.EDU s364mPQI026858 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wpi.edu; s=_dkim; t=1396759705; bh=PqqOv54E5Yyr+Tg0lSYHPsKrD5XZTjhyNuy9OHc+M3Q=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=r2anGxJ1m+j3psWfXp4RBM1vU5cmONLV+gAdVJZTiHBYkPnIG+KZHSrE5jjN67tNx udGy5b5U+XEgtJEb9dq0twD1xrj1EmC51FFkp5GMh5szQL416Gd5mU/Gtw5NbYkLn/ d6KIdvqLSTkvpCUFicasFOmMp2orz6ZZY0iypQhM= Received: from MX3.WPI.EDU (mx3.wpi.edu [130.215.36.147]) by MAIL1.WPI.EDU (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s364mP7O026855 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 00:48:25 -0400 Received: from angus.ind.WPI.EDU (ANGUS.IND.WPI.EDU [130.215.130.21]) by MX3.WPI.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s364mNux009102 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 00:48:24 -0400 (envelope-from cra@WPI.EDU) Received: from angus.ind.WPI.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by angus.ind.WPI.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s364mNY4016936 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 00:48:23 -0400 Received: (from cra@localhost) by angus.ind.WPI.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id s364mN7R016935 for cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 00:48:23 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: angus.ind.WPI.EDU: cra set sender to cra@WPI.EDU using -f Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 00:48:23 -0400 From: Chuck Anderson To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: <20140406044821.GO9694@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <20140406000236.GM9694@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> <20140406000858.GN9694@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released 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: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 04:48:26 -0000 On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 05:57:44PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Chuck Anderson 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....