From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 8505621F284 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 15:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle-6.home.lan ([91.50.109.108]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M4WNA-1Y3GDW0v40-00ykiW; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 00:44:02 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 00:44:01 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <440DFB9A-C4F8-4723-A407-20ABDBB7BD09@gmx.de> References: <7B5DD5A3-D273-4708-909C-5B5D5DE72282@gmx.de> To: =?windows-1252?Q?Dave_T=E4ht?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:D1nY6/XG/aJZls7PWoKcfq2OyApnymcDH3O3nohODx1npVDJzxE 2cTb5wELSTIzP4nHIZz4zl+YOcZMMnectAFmOR5h1JvcmqphI+AGR2RzLmnSd4U5scGzLqx ybsJVUbKTpnAjcAjW5kEJ9UkeMmH3R4qRm8cv/nIg2VqvY5T/y84EEuFjgas2E3oVxXvi56 Qd0vpx3koprZAMhl5X25Q== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Routing limit question 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, 19 Oct 2014 22:44:38 -0000 Hi Dave, so I just went with what I have available, shaping between linux host on = se00 and macbook on sw10, shaper on se00 (25M/25M that is the maximum = wireless throughput with the current router position): burst/cburst set = at 1600(default) 16000 and 16000. And lo and behold the sirq gets = smaller the larger burst/cburst is set. Now tho test is just too = confounded by my bad wireless to be proof, but it certainly justifies = the time to expose knobs in the GUI to set burst/cburst/quantum values = for HTB for each shaper instance independent for ingress and egress=85 = (I do not assume that this will even double the throughput of a wndr as = a router, but even just 10-20% will make a difference ;) (I will eat my = own dogwood, since I am about to upgrade from 16M/2.5M to 50M/10M right = into where our sirq pain starts)). Best Regards Sebastian On Oct 19, 2014, at 21:27 , Dave Taht wrote: > Yes fiddling with burst seems to make sense. Try 16k >=20 > On Oct 19, 2014 11:56 AM, "Sebastian Moeller" wrote: > HI Dave, >=20 >=20 > On Oct 19, 2014, at 20:24 , Dave Taht wrote: >=20 > > On at least one verizon device I've tried it appeared that they had > > SFQ or something similar on egress from the modem. > > > > = http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/RRUL_Rogues_Gallery#Verizon= -FIOS-Testing-at-25Mbit-up-and-25Mbit-down > > > > So you only needed to shape the download. which is good as we start > > peaking out at 50Mbit download total. But only measurements can = tell. >=20 > So on Hnymans community openwrt build a few fortunate ones on = excellent lines seem to get decent results even at 110-120 Mbps = combined: > https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=3D250989#p250989 > and: > https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=3D251013#p251013 > I have no idea why and both lines were reasonably well-behaved even = without any AQM/QOS... >=20 > Also I wonder whether when we increase the quantum for higher rates to = give HTB some breathing room, whether we also should increase burst and = cburst? My hunch is that quantum affects the switching between the = leaves, while busts and cburst should allow to dump more data to lower = layers inside each leaf qdisc. And since we are running behind, maybe = taking a bigger shovel can help some. (I assume this needs to be = titrated not to kill latency under load, but if we can only effective = have HTB execute x times per second we can easily afford to dump = line-rate/maxHTB_iteratin_rate bytes per opportunity, no?) My own = internet link is way to slow to test this... >=20 > Best Regards > Sebastian >=20 > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Ernesto Elias = wrote: > >> Hello everyone! > >> I have a question about the wndr3800 routing limit. I went back to = the older > >> submissions to see if I can find what would be the answer for it. = But in my > >> search I haven't managed to find a definite answer. =46rom what I = seen about > >> setting the limit it can do with SQM is 50, 60, or 80 mbit. I'm = just > >> wondering if anyone can shed some light for me here as I have = verizon fios > >> and my speeds are 50 dl/50 ul. Thank you guys very much! > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list > >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Dave T=E4ht > > > > thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks > > _______________________________________________ > > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >=20