From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vb0-f43.google.com (mail-vb0-f43.google.com [209.85.212.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6285621F166 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:31:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id fs19so18588446vbb.30 for ; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 07:31:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=kRgDIg4HhZmTdJmH5OA+pFJtWVrxJQvC/0hwFXecGrA=; b=jtVYeYiXt3Ge1yQ+dbf/19qPbk0dogJ5q42GHq0DGsFUzTRBAQCa14jjGorsK7DGGn TYV5z6YjzPJrO4UWL4TMgjzOjmmL0gssbUBrMaXtZMS/bRlL6K5weiBntrRMQ6GiWSAc GYuVYCVZtzmSO22tJPY1uxumi6z0ptdLTlrrO22tO/bl6grdDJGDu52dYk5NOC3/AInx yVGQfI2mVj3P5jbD2ShKgrpvuWwXn52BoVCh3vxi7vLrYrP+4T7a1u9sXEM+0PPzVltg xtM+goos5i7qZUbSaSIyzceOkwOmgnViBEL1B3YAYHZg2h3G4/6jbe00vL8fVVUMnFfW 2WHA== X-Received: by 10.58.49.130 with SMTP id u2mr83898420ven.0.1357486267792; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 07:31:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:470:894b:100:a104:7cf5:ac83:c139? ([2001:470:894b:100:a104:7cf5:ac83:c139]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cv19sm50140746vdb.5.2013.01.06.07.31.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 Jan 2013 07:31:06 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: William Katsak In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 10:31:05 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <72589410-68D6-45A6-B446-984071907C8E@gmail.com> References: To: Dave Taht X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? 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: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 15:31:10 -0000 Thanks. I figured something was broken with Netalyzer, but it still doesn't = explain why I can't browse a lot of websites when I kick in the = simple_qos. It is almost like the MTUs are mismatched someplace and = causing drops=85it is stumping me. -Bill On Jan 6, 2013, at 12:31 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > Netanalyzer's metrics are wrong when used with a fair queuing or codel > based system. They use a single udp flood to measure the "queue" when > in the "fq" portion of fq_codel there are 1024 by default, and when > codel kicks in, queue depth is reduced eventually to a level that tcp > would expect, but has no effect on a single udp flood. >=20 > Use a ping vs a big upload as your test, or the rrul test, after > setting your up/download appropriately. >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:37 PM, William Katsak = wrote: >> Hello, >>=20 >> I am experimenting with using Cero/Sugarland on a PPPoE connection, = and can't seem to find a config of simple_qos that works well. >>=20 >> The service is DSL, PPPoE, 3M/768K. Without any qos, the router works = well, as expected. When I try to use simple_qos, the clients have = trouble loading websites (hangs while loading, etc). >>=20 >> Netlyzer shows upstream buffering of about 650ms, consistently. I = have tried various higher and lower values for UPLINK and DOWNLINK, but = nothing seems to help. Anyway, I think 15-20% below link should be fine. >>=20 >> Here is my config: >> UPLINK=3D550 >> DOWNLINK=3D1900 >> DEV=3Difb0 >> IFACE=3Dge00 >> DEPTH=3D42 >> TC=3D/usr/sbin/tc >> FLOWS=3D8000 >> PERTURB=3D"perturb 0" # Permutation is costly, disable >> FLOWS=3D16000 # >> BQL_MAX=3D3000 # it is important to factor this into the RED calc >>=20 >> CEIL=3D$UPLINK >> MTU=3D1492 >> ADSLL=3D"" >> PPOE=3Dyes >>=20 >> Couple of things I am unsure about: >> 1) Should the IFACE be ge00 or pppoe-ge00? >> 2) Should the MTU be the pppoe mtu (1492) or the ethernet (1500) >>=20 >> One last thing: I have the lan split up into VLAN interfaces se00.1, = se00.100, and se00.200. Everything otherwise works as expected with = these, but could the naming be breaking something? >>=20 >> If anyone is willing to share a working configuration it would be = much appreciated. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Bill Katsak >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Dave T=E4ht >=20 > Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: = http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html