Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Correct syntax for cake commands and atm issues.

[Fred Stratton <fredstratton@imap.cc>]

By your command
Rebooted to rerun qdisc script, rather than changing qdiscs from the 
command-line, so suboptimal process as end-point changed.

script configuring qdiscs and overhead 40 on

sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p 2.96.48.1
2015-07-10 18:22:08 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4 
streams down and up while pinging 2.96.48.1. Takes about 60 seconds.
  Download:  6.73 Mbps
    Upload:  0.58 Mbps
   Latency: (in msec, 62 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
       Min: 24.094
     10pct: 172.654
    Median: 260.563
       Avg: 253.580
     90pct: 330.003
       Max: 411.145

script configuring qdiscs on flows raw

sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p
78.145.32.1
2015-07-10 18:49:21 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4 
streams down and up while pinging 78.145.32.1. Takes about 60 seconds.
  Download:  6.75 Mbps
    Upload:  0.59 Mbps
   Latency: (in msec, 59 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
       Min: 23.605
     10pct: 169.789
    Median: 282.155
       Avg: 267.099
     90pct: 333.283
       Max: 376.509

script configuring qdiscs and overhead 36 on

sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p
80.44.96.1
2015-07-10 19:20:18 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4 
streams down and up while pinging 80.44.96.1. Takes about 60 seconds.
  Download:  6.56 Mbps
    Upload:  0.59 Mbps
   Latency: (in msec, 62 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
       Min: 22.975
     10pct: 195.473
    Median: 281.756
       Avg: 271.609
     90pct: 342.130
       Max: 398.573


On 10/07/15 16:19, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>
> I'm glad to hear there's a working version (even if it's not in the 
> current build :).
>
> Do you have measurable improvements with overhead configured (v.s. 
> unconfigured)?
>
> I've used netperfrunner from CeroWrtScripts, e.g.
>
> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p $ISP_ROUTER
>
> I believe accounting for overhead helps on this two-way test, because 
> a) it saturates the uplink b) about half that bandwidth is tiny ack 
> packets (depending on bandwidth asymmetry).  And small packets have 
> proportionally high overhead.
>
> (But it seems to only make a small difference for me, which always 
> surprises Seb).
>
> Alan
>
> On 10/07/15 15:52, Fred Stratton wrote:
>>
>> You are absolutely correct.
>>
>> I tried both a numeric overhead value, and alternatively 'pppoe-vcmux'
>> and 'ether-fcs' in the build I crafted based on r46006, which is lupin
>> undeclared version 2. Everything works as stated.
>>
>> On lupin undeclared version 4, the current release based on r46117, the
>> values were not recognised.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> I had cake running on a Lantiq ADSL gateway running the same r46006
>> build. Unfortunately this was bricked by attempts to get homenet
>> working, so I have nothing to report about gateway usage at present.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/07/15 13:57, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>>
>>> You're already using correct syntax - I've written it to be quite
>>> lenient and use sensible defaults for missing information. There are
>>> several sets of keywords and parameters which are mutually orthogonal,
>>> and don't depend on each other, so "besteffort" has nothing to do with
>>> "overhead" or "atm".
>>>
>>> What's probably happening is that you're using a slightly old version
>>> of the cake kernel module which lacks the overhead parameter entirely,
>>> but a more up to date tc which does support it. We've seen this
>>> combination crop up ourselves recently.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan Morton
>>>
>>
>