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 3C7E621F1C1 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:26:20 -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 1F4D821308; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:26:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:26:19 -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=94b1IJAqQ6+0XSNV1hiGu8E2Xq8=; b=xUE8Bo1wX3OBBrByjV6+mrig6gj/ BNR8SQzQghIWiV81LpKRmawjn3LxUbQCm1AB+prdybMPFdPbKF2mA1i+V1eBkHPs aYa0tO1KtHnuLyarp4142Yur7lT+jq9xnBo7VhlCEJ9rN2kqek3oTsAi4hZAYIQ7 gArMwUbT22gh3rU= 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=94b1IJAqQ6+0XSNV1hiGu8 E2Xq8=; b=YpIxQ9Sb8IPFKf8p92vHF0hpDtewGyG/JuwHrGmcjg1VN5q+3kM56F EANphhaRNtXFIx8v4jkpjQFVlhCSC46ZlLH0DvOaojd80wfzjVW81a1TFvA9IqN5 cHOs7uJXXE0++U80fYlnOPfliORhd5ZNpDzLQTfU56eO1iVkGNHoI= X-Sasl-enc: RPVeGY7E+vV+O8FvKc9l3nlfR/IytRX3sV1XlFUrsXOG 1393255578 Received: from [172.30.42.8] (unknown [2.96.55.93]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 93E53C007AF; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:26:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <530B6429.9040307@imap.cc> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:24:25 +0000 From: Fred Stratton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rich Brown , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <4E5BC321-2054-4364-BECC-DF34E0D20380@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E5BC321-2054-4364-BECC-DF34E0D20380@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Equivocal results with using 3.10.28-14 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: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:26:20 -0000 How are you measuring the link speed? With SQM enabled, I have speedtest.net results far below the values at which the gateway syncs. IF the gateway syncs at 12000/1000, the speedtest figures are 9500/850 The performance I obtain with streaming video is very good, tweaking the extra settings in SQM on 3.10.28-16 I am sure you are aware that you will never achieve the values quoted by the ISP. How long is your line? Downstream attenuation is a proxy for this. Are you using ADSL2+, or some other protocol? Does the device even tell you? On 24/02/14 14:36, Rich Brown wrote: > CeroWrt 3.10.28-14 is doing a good job of keeping latency low. But... it has two other effects: > > - I don't get the full "7 mbps down, 768 kbps up" as touted by my DSL provider (Fairpoint). In fact, CeroWrt struggles to get above 6.0/0.6 mbps. > > - When I adjust the SQM parameters to get close to those numbers, I get increasing levels of packet loss (5-8%) during a concurrent ping test. > > So my question to the group is whether this behavior makes sense: that we can have low latency while losing ~10% of the link capacity, or that getting close to the link capacity should induce large packet loss... > > Experimental setup: > > I'm using a Comtrend 583-U DSL modem, that has a sync rate of 7616 kbps down, 864 kbps up. Theoretically, I should be able to tell SQM to use numbers a bit lower than those values, with an ATM plus header overhead with default settings. > > I have posted the results of my netperf-wrapper trials at http://richb-hanover.com - There are a number of RRUL charts, taken with different link rates configured, and with different link layers. > > I welcome people's thoughts for other tests/adjustments/etc. > > Rich Brown > Hanover, NH USA > > PS I did try the 3.10.28-16, but ran into troubles with wifi and ethernet connectivity. I must have screwed up my local configuration - I was doing it quickly - so I rolled back to 3.10.28.14. > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel