From: Fred Stratton <fredstratton@imap.cc>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] PIE and ADSL2+
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:31:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <528F2476.1000100@imap.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B9035D41-ACD6-4A8F-9878-8D345F5E248D@gmx.de>
Yes, PIE does apparently work better here than fq_codel. This is a
subjective judgement. I have stopped using RRUL.
On 22/11/13 09:23, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Hi Fred,
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2013, at 10:15 , Fred Stratton <fredstratton@imap.cc> wrote:
>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Are you still using ADSL2+, Sebastian, or have you moved to fibre?
> Yes, I am still on ADSL2+ (16M downlink 2.5M uplink); I hope to switch to VDSL2 soon (50M down, 10M up), since real fiber is not offered where I live. For completeness I have shaped down and up link to 95% of the raw link-rate, and use simple qos, with tc_stab, link layer ADSL, overhead 40, and that seems to work well in my setup. My link is quite robust, that is I get a number of FECs but only few CRCs (and FECs do not require retransmission of cells and thus do not impact the effective link speed).
> I have one question, does PIE work better for you than fq_codel on your test load (i think you try to watch some videos while up- and downloading is ongoing)?
>
> best
> Sebastian
>
>>
>> On 22/11/13 09:10, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>>> Hi Fred,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:08 , Fred Stratton <fredstratton@imap.cc> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have been using PIE instead of fq_codel for approximately 10 days. It works well.
>>> Intrigued by your report I went ahead and tested simple.qos with fq_codel and pie (cerowrt 3.10.18-1) with rrul against demo.tohojo.dk:
>>> /netperf-wrapper -l 300 -H demo.tohojo.dk rrul -p all_scaled -t my_silly_name
>>>
>>> Pie (with the default target of 20ms(?) shows around 120 ms ping delay (fq_codel shows 45ms) also the average downlink with fq_codel is roughly 10% higher than with pie. So at least in that test fq_codel seems better than pie. That said, compared to ping latencies up to 300ms (my primary router somehow restricts ;agencies to roughly 300ms) with no AQM, just rate shaping with HTB, pie still keeps the internet more useable.
>>>
>>>> Should it?
>>> I think its designers wanted it to be a competent disc, so I guess it should :)
>>>
>>>> Has PIE been optimized for ADSL?
>>> Best Regards
>>> Sebastian
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-22 9:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-20 10:08 Fred Stratton
2013-11-22 9:10 ` Sebastian Moeller
2013-11-22 9:15 ` Fred Stratton
[not found] ` <B9035D41-ACD6-4A8F-9878-8D345F5E248D@gmx.de>
2013-11-22 9:31 ` Fred Stratton [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=528F2476.1000100@imap.cc \
--to=fredstratton@imap.cc \
--cc=cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=moeller0@gmx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox