From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (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 CE71D201263 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:10:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7C6219B7; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:10:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:10:11 -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; s=mesmtp; bh=nNOqOe/hLezQxcHyAZtZBQin tJw=; b=rIdhJkw0403BWebIszfHwL4ULHs+U6aLnecX0zf2k1OJU3tURm+G1w9l O+ltgQhQ/MD7fyXQtJJhDTT+OGZgljb3ay9/nDjVBTYuNyG2gBG3XDncJHdp1bbX MrTGMN2irX4c5/ifkYMLDON0oaf9oCul7q0cmPPxRZtzrBpnQw0= 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; s=smtpout; bh=nNOq Oe/hLezQxcHyAZtZBQintJw=; b=ikzQ4Cm5Y3QdRv4wXDccyg/Woicv+o0JjURr cusko9h0BG3EwqCXnLQZ2/UDSR7ywMyyASbMDk6e87QKCD31WnPhQoKrZPTSg6C+ +WXc+wb20xPyPZd++4p3BVwF/a+ype/jkpkz3PEEBN1E9SKxexRoHotP76EqMP09 M5lfeCU= X-Sasl-enc: xHZD7N/IpdWapwGlTh64S98y2nFz49y9Cz/TSRlit8tW 1388171410 Received: from [172.30.42.8] (unknown [2.99.244.102]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 031736804F2; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:10:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52BDD08F.2000904@imap.cc> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 19:10:07 +0000 From: Fred Stratton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Taht , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <571C0EE5-DC15-4A9C-A195-A97F93A335EB@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050206040203030905040809" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: Re: CeroWrt 3.10.24-8 badly bloated? 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, 27 Dec 2013 19:10:13 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050206040203030905040809 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I upgraded to 3.10.24-8 on 2013-12-23. I modified /etc/fixdaemons, adding /etc/init.d/sqm restart input the appropriate sqm settings, transcribed from aqm rebooted and the build works very well. For ADSL2+ here, it is the best so far. On 27/12/13 18:55, Dave Taht wrote: > > A race condition appears to have crept in... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Dave Taht" > > Date: Dec 27, 2013 10:47 AM > Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] CeroWrt 3.10.24-8 badly bloated? > To: "Richard E. Brown" > > Cc: > > Probably didn't start sqm properly > > Restart it by hand via /etc/init.d/sqm restart > > tc -s qdisc show dev ge00 > > Should show htb and fq codel. > > On Dec 27, 2013 10:36 AM, "Rich Brown" > wrote: > > So I screwed up my courage and replaced my 3.10.18-? firmware in > my primary router with 3.10.24-8. That version had worked well as > a secondary, so I figured, What the heck... Let's give it try. > > The result was not pretty. I set my link speeds in the SQM page, > chose the defaults for the Queue Discipline tab, and link layer to > ATM with no additional overhead for my DSL link. > > Ping times to google are normally ~51-54 msec. But when I fired up > speedtest.net , they jumped to 1500-2500 > msec. Is there something I should look at before reverting? Thanks. > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel --------------050206040203030905040809 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I upgraded to 3.10.24-8 on 2013-12-23.

I modified /etc/fixdaemons, adding
/etc/init.d/sqm restart

input the appropriate sqm settings, transcribed from aqm

rebooted

and the build works very well. For ADSL2+ here, it is the best so far.


On 27/12/13 18:55, Dave Taht wrote:

A race condition appears to have crept in...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 27, 2013 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] CeroWrt 3.10.24-8 badly bloated?
To: "Richard E. Brown" <richb.hanover@gmail.com>
Cc:

Probably didn't start sqm properly

Restart it by hand via /etc/init.d/sqm restart

tc -s qdisc show dev ge00

Should show htb and fq codel.

On Dec 27, 2013 10:36 AM, "Rich Brown" <richb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:
So I screwed up my courage and replaced my 3.10.18-? firmware in my primary router with 3.10.24-8. That version had worked well as a secondary, so I figured, What the heck… Let’s give it try.

The result was not pretty. I set my link speeds in the SQM page, chose the defaults for the Queue Discipline tab, and link layer to ATM with no additional overhead for my DSL link.

Ping times to google are normally ~51-54 msec. But when I fired up speedtest.net, they jumped to 1500-2500 msec. Is there something I should look at before reverting? Thanks.

Rich
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel


_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

--------------050206040203030905040809--