From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 456B7208AD4 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:10:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from u-081-c252.eap.uni-tuebingen.de ([134.2.81.252]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MVMgI-1WAnyY0oVq-00YhcM for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:10:24 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <528C8A13.1010101@imap.cc> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:10:23 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8B8A306F-3E06-445D-9336-3E6F33533BFA@gmx.de> References: <528C8A13.1010101@imap.cc> To: Fred Stratton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:4evHfXm/AfMX5HBCSXwr+ihOQ0bYbMvsecQ9uYpi6ZH0lYq8VMa +Fa4XTadO+CgKTJioGZltPbNHkVAYC91Lf7fDXRhb2jq4BKGLPDNigRJIWppPoG77pi6aAa IXcxCbQ317Cb0pcDIK2yRJIWwC1EefePFREevGIdARIQw/pxsiVJxP+hexO2X71AP6zqN2i /NEU+xqFl78mldR58+lmQ== Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] PIE and ADSL2+ 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, 22 Nov 2013 09:10:28 -0000 Hi Fred, On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:08 , Fred Stratton wrote: > I have been using PIE instead of fq_codel for approximately 10 days. = It works well. Intrigued by your report I went ahead and tested simple.qos with = fq_codel and pie (cerowrt 3.10.18-1) with rrul against demo.tohojo.dk: /netperf-wrapper -l 300 -H demo.tohojo.dk rrul -p all_scaled -t = my_silly_name Pie (with the default target of 20ms(?) shows around 120 ms ping = delay (fq_codel shows 45ms) also the average downlink with fq_codel is = roughly 10% higher than with pie. So at least in that test fq_codel = seems better than pie. That said, compared to ping latencies up to 300ms = (my primary router somehow restricts ;agencies to roughly 300ms) with = no AQM, just rate shaping with HTB, pie still keeps the internet more = useable. =09 >=20 > Should it? I think its designers wanted it to be a competent disc, so I = guess it should :) >=20 > Has PIE been optimized for ADSL? Best Regards Sebastian > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel