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 A647121F0E7 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:41:37 -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 6633D21C0E; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:41:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:41:36 -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=cHE+AU8u/kMG6Yap7oxG1EQo SVU=; b=stCWcb4HBbPnp2cVWtrnwhHmJjKV2joPFpeODm68oSEkmz0c+m1DIpGM VStpQLSAGsHv8O9G6ANoy544P1QIIHTfKhLmGXoPDhVYRCuiQL0nERWP4LdHmTp0 ggXRGSamR17oCn3OmiuMpBoe8wzAOGQQ6f/uph0qsKWlQEDFjPc= 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=cHE+ AU8u/kMG6Yap7oxG1EQoSVU=; b=HNLgf2z+qVLGPCAJ49ai5jXOXYxjmlB2E3Gb 4jPeFjf6naJgME5bILlFJV4tv4tXivhgX4LaVTy9HtBzvKf0cLE1uXa6Ii9GaxrN eK2Fbow/DZS+EWJy5+j98I2VpJHkg/q0YyAs+wk3cqmpDBwBg+7kRpweIEmMyQIg kotMHfE= X-Sasl-enc: yJgSy45i5WtviQJauO1NmHRVEEKZT77LlvQUi4AOSVRA 1388176895 Received: from [172.30.42.8] (unknown [2.99.243.63]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A0D016800E7; Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:41:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52BDE5FE.4060809@imap.cc> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 20:41:34 +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 , Sebastian Moeller , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <571C0EE5-DC15-4A9C-A195-A97F93A335EB@gmail.com> <52BDD08F.2000904@imap.cc> <52BDD303.8070102@imap.cc> <76A010B1-F6DB-4DF8-98A7-6F43974B72D6@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020602080602080601060103" 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 20:41:37 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020602080602080601060103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I use simple.qos because it gave slightly better qualitative empirical results. If anyone prefers that I switch to simplest.qos for testing purposes, I shall do so. On 27/12/13 19:49, Dave Taht wrote: > > > Pie has a default latency target of 20ms, fq codel 5ms. (But the fq > code target matters less as the target only applies to queue building > flows) > > A packet takes 13ms to transit the device at 1mbit. > > There is a change to fq codel in this release that should make > fiddling with target a low speeds less needed. (But might have other > problems) Still a comparison at roughly the same target vs a vs pie in > your environment would be very interesting. > > I suggested 25ms as a test (as pie never makes 20ms anyway) > > I came close to inserting a simple formula to start increasing the > target below 4mbit in this release. > > On Dec 27, 2013 11:25 AM, "Sebastian Moeller" > wrote: > > > > Hi Fred, > > > > you could try to put "target 25ms" without the quotes into the > advanced egress options field in the "Queue Discipline" tab, that is > exposed after checking "Show Dangerous Configuration". I would love to > hear whether that worked or not (I am not able to test anything > myself). Maybe posting the output of "tc -d qdisc" and "tc class show > dev ge00" would help. Good luck… > > > > > > Best Regards > > Sebastian > > > > > > On Dec 27, 2013, at 20:20 , Fred Stratton wrote: > > > > > I have been using pie for approximately 3 weeks. > > > > > > You are correct, in that the outbound speed is about 800 - 900 kb/s. > > > > > > I shall try what you suggest, but do not know how to express the > target of 25 ms as a configuration option. > > > > > > > > > On 27/12/13 19:15, Dave Taht wrote: > > >> Dear fred: are you sticking with pie? I was going to suggest you > try fq codel with a target 25ms on your outbound. (You are at 800kbit > or so as best I recall?) > > >> > > >> On Dec 27, 2013 11:10 AM, "Fred Stratton" > wrote: > > >> 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 > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > > > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > > --------------020602080602080601060103 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I use simple.qos because it gave slightly better qualitative empirical results.

If anyone prefers that I switch to simplest.qos for testing purposes, I shall do so.

On 27/12/13 19:49, Dave Taht wrote:


Pie has a default latency target of 20ms, fq codel 5ms. (But the fq code target matters less as the target only applies to queue building flows)

A packet takes 13ms to transit the device at 1mbit.

There is a change to fq codel in this release that should make fiddling with target a low speeds less needed. (But might have other problems) Still a comparison at roughly the same target vs a vs pie in your environment would be very interesting.

I suggested 25ms as a test (as pie never makes 20ms anyway)

I came close to inserting a simple formula to start increasing the target below 4mbit in this release.

On Dec 27, 2013 11:25 AM, "Sebastian Moeller" <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Fred,
>
> you could try to put "target 25ms" without the quotes into the advanced egress options field in the "Queue Discipline" tab, that is exposed after checking "Show Dangerous Configuration". I would love to hear whether that worked or not (I am not able to test anything myself). Maybe posting the output of "tc -d qdisc" and "tc class show dev ge00" would help. Good luck…
>
>
> Best Regards
>         Sebastian
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2013, at 20:20 , Fred Stratton <fredstratton@imap.cc> wrote:
>
> > I have been using pie for approximately 3 weeks.
> >
> > You are correct, in that the outbound speed is about 800 - 900 kb/s.
> >
> > I shall try what you suggest, but do not know how to express the target of 25 ms as a configuration option.
> >
> >
> > On 27/12/13 19:15, Dave Taht wrote:
> >> Dear fred: are you sticking with pie? I was going to suggest you try fq codel with a target 25ms on your outbound. (You are at 800kbit or so as best I recall?)
> >>
> >> On Dec 27, 2013 11:10 AM, "Fred Stratton" <fredstratton@imap.cc> wrote:
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>


--------------020602080602080601060103--