From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C11B21F220 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:31:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.45]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3B420821; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:31:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:31:34 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=imap.cc; h= message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mesmtp; bh=M802AwyH+7d8Aw5xS/kcsLBR6cQ=; b=cXXZzJtys2bFdWPXcN2CXC6ttgUM //ar7GJ2tGgDsV8A1oZ6WLASXdBbdJ5NH04o5stqPbbB7cYd3pi541x6vl1P7/IL pPmp25OqUGuBPi5Gj8O1H/Duphk+xGWn34S1uyUswLMtcHSg80pnFtTnnMJakFW6 NDhNyt0rO97Tu4U= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=M802AwyH+7d8Aw5xS/kcsL BR6cQ=; b=KaCgnpvBXwhBnzhHmKSCUpLeHCOCRN0eWnSs2qXfEiRtw6jFN21S77 +XJTqapXJ0QETkgzQ/HjtjZBmlxpuOVei+cyNgM8YLT6CZyR/81kca0dqTha/QP/ M80gNZmH+IMg90G4BaOqE1TnBbt3/q8qo5R8AFOj52OV+d6gwfKxg= X-Sasl-enc: CDs5C6Bj0ynXxoWUvatTXxk5SM331ZDsbnirTKZb+ZKM 1385112694 Received: from [172.30.42.8] (unknown [89.240.233.198]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 123DBC00E83; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 04:31:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <528F2476.1000100@imap.cc> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:31:34 +0000 From: Fred Stratton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sebastian Moeller , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <528C8A13.1010101@imap.cc> <8B8A306F-3E06-445D-9336-3E6F33533BFA@gmx.de> <528F20BA.4060708@imap.cc> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] PIE and ADSL2+ 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, 22 Nov 2013 09:31:36 -0000 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 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 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