From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED2C321F263 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from android-a41513caebd91011.home.lan ([87.164.165.7]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MMShK-1YaTmf49wE-008Fm4; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 07:09:08 +0100 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <08BAF198-87C5-42B8-8899-53F34E47156E@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Sebastian Moeller Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 07:09:04 +0100 To: Jonathan Morton ,David Lang Message-ID: <896FAE61-B45A-4F34-9449-5ADB82194DD9@gmx.de> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:D3YtJ78Mofbk8n9wRY8F38D/P1SGx3C6KxebFMqbdnR5rlhQgAh L1rLGlZmJkuwwKe0pVrnrzv9UfE1stn+Q6vUsyN6JlmoXGMdMjgpWvqrNkFMxLNCEq/5BUf T6+FavPYCVsgrPmELYRQcji921+mNB6y641zITdxCKkJqjkUbWfERi6tgkue7uq9PHpFbd3 o+Vow2KC7N5Av6emcNgyA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] archer c7 v2, policing, hostapd, test openwrt build 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, 23 Mar 2015 06:09:40 -0000 Hi Jonathan, hi Dave, On March 23, 2015 3:10:52 AM GMT+01:00, Jonathan Morton wrote: > >> On 23 Mar, 2015, at 03:45, David Lang wrote: >>=20 >> are we running into performance issues with fq_codel? I thought all >the problems were with HTB or ingress shaping=2E > >Cake is, in part, a response to the HTB problem; it is a few percent >more efficient so far than an equivalent HTB+fq_codel combination=2E It >will have a few other novel features, too=2E > >Bobbie is a response to the ingress-shaping problem=2E A policer (with >no queue) can be run without involving an IFB device, which we believe >has a large overhead=2E This is testable, if nobody beats me to it I will try this week=2E= The main idea is to replace the ingress shaping on ge00 with egress shapin= g on the interface between the client and the router, so most likely se00 i= n cerowrt=2E This should effectively behave as the current sqm setup with i= ngress shaping, though only for hosts on se00=2E Of ifb truly is costly thi= s setup should show better bandwidth use in rrul tests than the default=2E = It obviously degrade local performance of se00 and hence be not a true solu= tion unless one is happy to fully dedicate a box as shaper ;) Best Regards Sebastian > > - Jonathan Morton > >_______________________________________________ >Cerowrt-devel mailing list >Cerowrt-devel@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/cerowrt-devel --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E