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 88FFD21F19C for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from hms-beagle-3.home.lan ([217.254.130.56]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lq9se-1VOKmi2o3U-00dkFu for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:30:20 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <3BF82F93-07EC-44F8-AF98-2FD156A9A43F@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:30:19 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9EA0DCA1-79CF-48EF-9864-A51807F331B5@gmx.de> References: <3BF82F93-07EC-44F8-AF98-2FD156A9A43F@gmail.com> To: Rich Brown X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:wIB9dkGrVKW+AIDaOhLDwgZPAtdOYnpwg9NJRv5UnkR4UTji7S9 vo27AKiQBjtffKGUTJeWQG5wbYcGFMTggTGVO4rzoJseeNWw9jhOlTCsf0pVoZ+dN0an7TE adN+NShLAFUHfs4dqRQELppFCw8HZX6P021afxOphohEMlwVzVTFPU0voFlYYs1mkfVJXW/ X/ZUICdlCd8zKQzXP73BQ== Cc: cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Perfection vs. Good Enough 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: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:30:49 -0000 Hi Rich, On Jan 11, 2014, at 17:31 , Rich Brown wrote: > Folks, >=20 > I am so pleased with the state of CeroWrt. The software has improved = enormously, to the point that we all get really good performance from = our routers at home. If you want a real eyeful of the progress we=92ve = made, check list at the bottom of the Release Notes: = http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/CeroWrt_310_Release_Notes= >=20 > CeroWrt is working great. We have two great testimonials for how it = has improved network performance (from Fred Stratton and David = Personnette, see = https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/2014-January/001961.= html and = https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/2014-January/001970.= html) >=20 > I have been using 3.10.24-8 at home without hiccups (after I turned on = SQM :-) since it was shipped. We=92ve got a really great program. >=20 > But - I=92m afraid we=92re letting perfection be the enemy of the = good. Here are a couple indications: >=20 > - The rest of the world doesn=92t know about this good work. If you = look at the front page of the site, we=92re recommending CeroWrt 3.7.5-2 = from last February. It has Codel, but not much more. Our understanding = of the world has expanded by an order of magnitude, but we=92re not = making it available to anyone. >=20 > - The entire discussion of link layers has held us back. That=92s why = I proposed to cut back the choices to ATM and None, and let people = figure out the details if they want to/have time to optimize. >=20 > - We have tons of updated modules (dnsmasq, IPv6, quagga, mosh) which = we should get out to the world.=20 >=20 > - The entire product is much tighter, works better, and we can be = proud of it. As Dave T=E4ht pointed out in a recent note: >=20 >> Compared to the orders of magnitude we already get from fq codel, the = sum benefit=20 >> of these [Link Layer Adaptation] fixes is in the very small = percentage points. I do not agree with this sentiment, as I understood Dave was = talking about different modifications to fq_codel (nfq_codel and = efq_codel), this was not about the link layer; for an ATM link if you = get the link layer wrong the shaper does at best work stochastically; = and if the shaper does not work well we are back at square one: badly = managed buffers out of our control filling up causing delays worth = seconds. So unless you shape down to ~50% of link rate, you will get at = least temporary buffer bloat on an ATM link, unless you take all the ATM = peculiarities into account (basically what link layer ATM is doing). >=20 > This is true of the entire CeroWrt build. >=20 > Proposal: >=20 > We should =93finish up the last bits=94 to make 3.10.24-8 (or a close = derivative) be a stable release. It has been working fine AFAIK for lots = and lots of us. It certainly has been as well tested as other branches. = I see the following: >=20 > - Look through the release notes (very bottom of the page at the URL = above) and review the items that Dave was worried about for the = 3.10.24-8 release >=20 > - Make a decision on Link Layer Adaptation choices, and implement it. It is quite clear to me, that I failed to explain the matters = surrounding ATM links properly. But if I can not explain this to a small = group of technical experts there is no chance for me to explain this to = lay persons. I will try my best to contribute to the "more than you ever = wanted to know about link layer adaptation" page. Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > - What else?=20 >=20 > Best, >=20 > Rich >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel