From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-x22a.google.com (mail-qa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FD5321F0AE; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id dx4so1930549qab.1 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:39:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:x-mailer; bh=lve1g7T49HemOmOr2uH25T9PHiEYtQ1GXcy4OxyemGQ=; b=yPzUdv3RuW9K7bgqiCuRZ9M4bi091lKfZKjhYCKXE+KycYsOCt7vEQcF/zMNQbpNMi yJfb+rj6bNqecJjZp/NOAPYYgD5PdThPYg/PA9+CkIYYG6I6n8ZC8edThzA9koIYVTYs eYdjlxG1pJSM6io/Tcqzt77dbDtvqGfOM5023PPNOCR59BuCM+moZjIUqdvBj6NYcGe9 ZpTQs5/N4wgenR0zGv68EJyWCRdxH3cZwsNf0U4a5SAJAXbXsoGF8TGHoa8Z6NsJ90p/ NWqMNnMcGm99dcaMFpYmbTPjNjgo/PAxt+IuQOistoT3lPBlWv+LCi4lDJJKnGu6ywAX x31w== X-Received: by 10.224.192.196 with SMTP id dr4mr1494180qab.80.1367375985972; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:470:8a63:4:c09e:b7f:fd5a:4f82? ([2001:470:8a63:4:c09e:b7f:fd5a:4f82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z2sm2747493qad.4.2013.04.30.19.39.43 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Rich Brown In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:39:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1367175177.866711110@apps.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Codel] [Bloat] blip: a tool for seeing internet latency with javascript 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: Wed, 01 May 2013 02:39:47 -0000 Folks, I noted a paradoxical effect using the blip tool and CeroWrt. I wrote it = up and included screen shots in: http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/430 = Here's the text of the note. Any thoughts? Rich Brown Hanover, NH ------------- CeroWrt 3.8.8-4 doesn't have as big an effect on the apenwarr.ca blip = javascript program as I expected. This isn't really a bug report, but I = am using this message as an easy way to include screen shots: Experimental setup #1 - Macbook connected to demo3.intermapper.com, where I executed iperf -s - Macbook running iperf locally to that server (iperf -c = demo3.intermapper.com -i 1 -t 30) - Macbook running http://apenwarr.ca/log/ connected to primary (bloated) = router running DD-WRT from a couple years ago Result: blip chart times increase during iperf as expected. The response = goes from ~120/200 (green/blue, respectively) to ~500msec for both. (see = "Test #1 using primary router wireless" image) Experimental setup #2: - MacBook is connected to CeroWrt 3.8.8-4 which is connected to LAN side = of DD-WRT which then goes to the Internet.=20 - Run "iperf -c" as before Result: the blip chart times seem to exhibit approximately the same = behavior, with the same high response times during the iperf transfer. = (See "Test #2 using CeroWrt5 wireless" image below) Observation: Both charts seem similar - this is counter to my intuition, and counter = to my experience using a simple sequence of one-second pings which don't = vary much from the baseline in the experimental setup #2. Hypotheses: - blip is a cool hack, but a bad test, and doesn't accurately represent = the responsiveness of the network.=20 - fq_codel as implemented in CeroWrt3.8.8-4 does not handle these "TCP = Pings" well/as expected.=20 - ??? Any thoughts? Rich Brown Hanover, NH