Not trying to haggle. Just pointing out that this test configuration has a very short RTT. maybe too short for our SQM to adjust to. On Oct 24, 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >Hi David, > >On Oct 24, 2015, at 00:53 , David P. Reed wrote: > >> In particular, the DUT should probably have no more than 2 packets >of outbound queueing given the very small RTT. 2xRTT is the most >buffering you want in the loop. > > Let’s not haggle about the precise amount of queueing we deem >acceptable, as long as we all agree that >= 2 seconds is simply not >acceptable ;) (the default sqm will approximately limit the latency >under load increase (LULI) to roughly twice the target or typically 10 >ms; note that this LULI only applies to unrelated flows). The exact >number of queued packets seems to correlate with the beefiness of the >DUT, the beefier the fewer packets should work, wimpier devices might >need to batch some processing up, resulting in higher LULI… > >Best Regards > Sebastian > >> >> On Oct 23, 2015, Richard Smith wrote: >> On 10/23/2015 02:41 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: >> Richard Smith wrote: >> My test setup: >> >> Laptop<--1000BaseT-->DUT<--1000baseT-->Server >> >> So, given that the DUT is the only real constraint in the network, >what >> do you expect to see from this setup? >> >> Given that the probably DUT can't forward at Gb/s, and it certainly >can't >> shape anything, it's gonna drop packets, and it's probably gonna drop >them in >> Rx, having overrun the Rx-queue (so tail-drop). If there is too much >ram >> (bufferbloated), then you'll see different results... >> >> Setting ingress/egress to 10Mbit/s I expected to see the speed >> measurements bounce around those limits with the ping times staying >in >> the low double digits of ms. What I saw however, was the data rates >> going well past 10Mbit limit and pings up to 2000 ms. >> >> This is what I've seen in prior rrul testing using a the 50/10 cable >> link at our office and my 25(ish)/6 link at my apartment and a well >> connected server on the net. That however was using QoS and not SQM. >> >> Its that a reasonable expectation? >> >> -- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing. >_______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel -- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing.