Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] archer c7 v2, policing, hostapd, test openwrt build
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 15:48:10 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <91FFBFA0-0E87-4A57-AF6C-83C42AB10D1D@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F1D65A00-F766-4221-93CC-E22F5157B643@gmx.de>


> On 29 Mar, 2015, at 14:16, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:

Okay, so it looks like you get another 5% without any shaping running.  So in summary:

- With no shaping at all, the router is still about 10% down compared to downstream line rate.
- Upstream is fine *if* unidirectional.  The load of servicing downstream traffic hurts upstream badly.
- Turning on HTB + fq_codel loses you 5%.
- Using ingress filtering via IFB loses you another 5%.
- Mangling the Diffserv field loses you yet another 5%.

Those 5% penalties add up.  People might grudgingly accept a 10% loss of bandwidth to be sure of lower latency, and faster hardware would do better than that, but losing 25% is a bit much.

I should be able to run similar tests through my Pentium-MMX within a couple of days, so we can see whether I get similar overhead numbers out of that; I can even try plugging in your shaping settings, since they’re (just) within the line rate of the 100baseTX cards installed in it.  I could also compare cake’s throughput to that of HTB + fq_codel; I’ve already seen an improvement with older versions of cake, but I want to see what the newest version gets too.

Come to think of it, I should probably try swapping the same cards into a faster machine as well, to see how much they influence the result.

>> You see, if we were to use a policer instead of ingress shaping, we’d not only be getting IFB and ingress Diffserv mangling out of the way, but HTB as well.
> 
> But we still would run HTB for egress I assume, and the current results with policers Dave hinted at do not seem like good candidates for replacing shaping…

The point of this exercise was to find out whether a theoretical, ideal policer on ingress might - in theory, mind - give a noticeable improvement of efficiency and thus throughput.

The existing policers available are indeed pretty unsuitable, as Dave’s tests proved, but there may be a way to do better by adapting AQM techniques to the role.  In particular, Codel’s approach of gradually increasing a sparse drop rate seems like it would work better than the “brick wall” imposed by a plain token bucket.

Your results suggest that investigating this possibility might still be worthwhile.  Whether anything will come of it, I don’t know.

 - Jonathan Morton


  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-29 12:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-23  0:24 Dave Taht
2015-03-23  0:31 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23  1:10 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23  1:18   ` Dave Taht
2015-03-23  1:34 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23  1:45   ` David Lang
2015-03-23  2:00     ` Dave Taht
2015-03-23  2:10     ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23  2:15       ` Dave Taht
2015-03-23  2:18         ` Dave Taht
2015-03-23  6:09       ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-23 13:43         ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23 16:09           ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-24  0:00             ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-24  0:05               ` Dave Taht
2015-03-24  0:07                 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-24  3:16               ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-24  7:47                 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-24  8:13                   ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-24  8:46                     ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-29  1:14                     ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-29  6:17                       ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-29 11:16                         ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-29 12:48                           ` Jonathan Morton [this message]
2015-03-29 14:16                             ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-29 15:13                               ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23 17:08       ` David Lang
2015-03-23 16:17 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-23 16:27   ` Dave Taht
2015-03-23 17:07     ` David Lang
2015-03-23 18:16       ` Jonathan Morton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=91FFBFA0-0E87-4A57-AF6C-83C42AB10D1D@gmail.com \
    --to=chromatix99@gmail.com \
    --cc=cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    --cc=moeller0@gmx.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox