From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1241A21F19A for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle-6.home.lan ([91.50.109.108]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M86jp-1Y2PDX1BmD-00viXJ; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 21:55:54 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 21:55:53 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Ernesto Elias X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:+K67SBGFA25WEkXvtJgRohu86xCCE1vKme+GcOcdzOs8D3AYDep Gl2J3YpHQQ8dPtN+jIm/PAwzPr640uTWhdmNUpk8jBblSngMINBK/0XE/lQq111GvBg6Wxc kPXt9zmS64i4II2WLDN62Owv0g7wxodR0GllUV0YwYflv7EHA5ktfGFIOv+TjVIEGD1r0ZI Of3OntAVOgN6OaDXSLXSw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Routing limit question 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: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 19:56:26 -0000 Hi Ernesto, I would recommend to not run the netperf processes on the router you = want to assess, if possible. Shaping at the rates you are interested in = probably will take 100% CPU of the router, so there is no slack for = running net server and netperf instances at the same time. Also I would = recommend to use netperf-wrapper = (https://github.com/tohojo/netperf-wrapper) instead of netperfrunner.sh = as it allows so much nicer visualization of the queueing over time. = netperfrunner.sh is great tool for quick testing and figuring out link = capacities and worst case latency under load increase (LULI), but for = more thorough comparisons it ain=92t made. Netperf-wrapper will run = under linux and macosx natively, but will also run (well enough) in a = linux virtual machine on a windows box. Best Regards Sebastian On Oct 19, 2014, at 21:16 , Ernesto Elias = wrote: > root@cerowrt:~# /usr/lib/CeroWrtScripts/netperfrunner.sh > 2014-10-19 15:10:27 Testing netperf.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4 = streams down a = = nd up while pinging gstatic.com. Takes about 60 = seconds. > Download: 30.49 Mbps > Upload: 46.52 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 19.848 > 10pct: 19.958 > Median: 20.743 > Avg: 21.229 > 90pct: 22.739 > Max: 30.491 > root@cerowrt:~# /usr/lib/CeroWrtScripts/netperfrunner.sh > 2014-10-19 15:11:54 Testing netperf.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4 = streams down a = = nd up while pinging gstatic.com. Takes about 60 = seconds. > Download: 7.02 Mbps > Upload: 63.68 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 21.690 > 10pct: 117.997 > Median: 153.983 > Avg: 150.851 > 90pct: 180.777 > Max: 190.265 >=20 >=20 > The first result i gotten by only shaping the uplink and the second = results are for only shaping the downlink... >=20 > and for the testing i put 0 on the for the downlink and uplink when I = was testing for the opposite. and I put 50000 in it when I was shaping = it for the test. Am I doing it right ? >=20 > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Dave Taht = wrote: > shape the download only, then measure. shape the upload only, then = measure. >=20 > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Ernesto Elias = wrote: > > Oh OK I mean I was just wondering because I was trying to figure out = what > > should I have put in the sqm tab because I saw that the wndr3800 = tops out at > > 50 mbit combined of download and upload right? As of now I have it = at 25/25 > > on the page. Is that right or should I just shape the upload? > > > > On Oct 19, 2014 2:24 PM, "Dave Taht" wrote: > >> > >> On at least one verizon device I've tried it appeared that they had > >> SFQ or something similar on egress from the modem. > >> > >> > >> = http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/RRUL_Rogues_Gallery#Verizon= -FIOS-Testing-at-25Mbit-up-and-25Mbit-down > >> > >> So you only needed to shape the download. which is good as we start > >> peaking out at 50Mbit download total. But only measurements can = tell. > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Ernesto Elias = > >> wrote: > >> > Hello everyone! > >> > I have a question about the wndr3800 routing limit. I went back = to the > >> > older > >> > submissions to see if I can find what would be the answer for it. = But in > >> > my > >> > search I haven't managed to find a definite answer. =46rom what I = seen > >> > about > >> > setting the limit it can do with SQM is 50, 60, or 80 mbit. I'm = just > >> > wondering if anyone can shed some light for me here as I have = verizon > >> > fios > >> > and my speeds are 50 dl/50 ul. Thank you guys very much! > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > >> > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Dave T=E4ht > >> > >> thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Dave T=E4ht >=20 > thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel