From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (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 53A4C21F280 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 02:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle.lan ([134.2.89.70]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MbJTE-1Yyshz0VW8-00IjYX; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:05:31 +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: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:05:31 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <558D3A0C-75A0-4707-95DF-790F29F825AE@gmx.de> To: leetminiwheat X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:R0KLtwCzTkkXHYUgzj5loE2SKgnQ+MGFv9YxBpqkLiWq0/zuN6q l8ZIsmdewZmqU7rTbYm+Uwx8N5oVdiWWh/O+x324ZpOOWFIVyCYY52q7l0vEGJyM519aB/6 l5PA6yFbjkVIhpRMFF8N2y6wRnYIEhIW1kxaBUrJj2erc/JKz4g1J/guOQALnmtHwg0iG8Q s1DhRZyIpINTs5OCpLHfw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] squash/ignore DSCP and mangle table questions 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, 15 Apr 2015 09:06:04 -0000 Hi leetminiwheat, On Apr 15, 2015, at 03:35 , leetminiwheat = wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Sebastian Moeller = wrote: >> This looks reasonable. >>=20 >>> [...] >>=20 >> I had a look at my cerowrt router and I also see txqueuelen at = 1000, but IIRC that does not matter much anymore, since the wndr37/800 = support BQL: >> cat /sys/class/net/ge00/queues/tx-0/byte_queue_limits/limit_max >> 3000 >> So even with txqueuelen =3D 1000 the tx queue will only hold 3000 = bytes. For fib and friends it does not really matter as far as I can = tell. >=20 > Interesting, I had been reading about BQL but didn't fully understand > it until now. This clears up a lot of confusion, thank you. >=20 > I assume tweaking ring parameters from default RX:128 and TX:32 > doesn't matter anymore thenr? As far as I know we leave that alone, see: = http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Linux_Tips: =93Set the size of the ring buffer for the network interface NOTE: THIS HACK IS NO LONGER NEEDED on many ethernet drivers in Linux = 3.3, which has Byte Queue Limits instead, which does a far better job." >=20 >> [...] >> If you have time and netperf-wrapper it would be good to convince = yourself and us again, that txqueuelen really does not matter for BQL=92d = interfaces by running RRUL tests with and without your modifications=85. >=20 > Will do if I can get a friend to set up a netperf server in a node at > his datacenter he works at, though I believe he's using Debian Jessy > without any kind of QoS, but his datacenter routers might screw with > the packets. Maybe I can hook a spare box up to the WAN port > temporarily to test with. Ah, there are three netperf servers out there that, as far as I = know, we are allowed to use: netperf-west.bufferbloat.net netperf-east.bufferbloat.net netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net My guess is the last one should be closest to you, and should do = at least for initial tests. Having a faster closer netperf server = available certainly is even more attractive. Best Regards Sebastian