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 ED61821F13F for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 06:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from hms-beagle-3.home.lan ([217.254.130.56]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lx83d-1VKWR539Sb-016iTl for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 15:12:22 +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: <52CA7CC3.2030203@imap.cc> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 15:12:21 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <01558084-B7D8-448A-A4ED-CE36D18AAA97@gmail.com> <52C855B1.1040209@imap.cc> <52CA7CC3.2030203@imap.cc> To: Fred Stratton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Yg1KNZBoH/HLirCU3qKajfe6C3pgN7m+oG298bsmLIZv1xPwilI 20kJV9hnvIgXqJP2rphnBjq0rl32Pr+9TK7ATsmpas6rVmDhCiGt7OllHvnpbkNttO+kyfg eCLPg0ARvuVKNPsSDpWpdQEiCATTY137Sx6t0a2lX5VjyTSIUusQLGDMXZz1KOV0ig69L4J Abw8uUKhL8u7MBVSd/I7g== Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] SQM Question #5: Link Layer Adaptation Overheads 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: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 14:12:32 -0000 Hi Fred, On Jan 6, 2014, at 10:52 , Fred Stratton wrote: > I have been operating the latest build with 6relayd disabled. The = henet /48 I have been allocated is subnetted correctly, presumably by = dnsmasq. >=20 > I adopted the suggestions to use nfq_codel and an egress target of = 25ms , with an overhead of 40 on a PPPoE connection. I chose to watch = the first 2 episodes of the 3 part third series of 'Sherlock', live on = iPlayer, and these streamed correctly and uninterrupted for 90 minutes. = This was not previously possible. (Quite whether they were up to the = standard of previous episodes is another matter.) >=20 > I can watch iPlayer with little stutter whilst downloading Arch Linux = by torrent, downloading other files at the same time. >=20 > So, for a relatively slow ADSL2+ line, the current build works well. Out of curiosity, to what percentage of the "current line rate" = (you know the one reported by your modem) you shaped up- and downlink? = And in case you have too much time on your hand, how does the same feel = with an overhead of 10 (to see how bad an overhead underestimate would = feel for a user), since you currently happen to have a quite sensitive = subjective latency evaluation system set up :)=85 Best Regards Sebastian >=20 >=20 > On 06/01/14 03:29, Dave Taht wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Fred Stratton = wrote: >>> Link Names: >>>=20 >>> For consistency, if ADSL is used as a portmanteau term, them VDSL = should be >>> used as the equivalent for VDSL and VDSL2. >>>=20 >>> CeroWRT has to decide whether it is an experimental build, or = something that >>> will eventually be used in production, so these decisions can be = made >>> consistently. >> Well, what I was aiming for was for us to get the sqm scripts and gui >> up to where they were better than the standard openwrt qos scripts = and >> then push them up to openwrt to where they could be more widely >> deployed. >>=20 >> Aside from being able to dynamically assign priorities in the gui, we >> are there. Except that nfq_codel is currently getting better results >> than fq_codel at low bandwidths, and I'm tempted to pour all of >> simple.qos into C. >>=20 >> As for cero's future - certainly since all the snowden revelations >> I've been going around saying that "friends don't let friends run >> factory firmware". I would like a stable build of sqm and cerowrt to >> emerge, and to then go off and work on improving wifi. Regrettably >> what seems to be happening is more backwards than forwards on the >> former, and ramping up on the ath9k and ath10k is taking more time >> than I'd like, and it seems likely I'll be working on those primarily >> on another platform and only eventually pushing the results out to >> cero, mainline kernel >>=20 >> So it's still at the "keep plugging away" point for sqm, ipv6, cero = in >> general, with the stable release always just out of sight. >>=20 >> Tackling the ipv6 problem is next on my agenda on cero, and getting a >> test suite going is next on my day job. >>=20 >>> I concur with your ADSL setup suggestion as default. I have been = running the >>> Sebastian Moeller ping script overnight to calculate ADSL overhead = for the >>> last several days. After several hours of curve fitting using = Octave, an >>> overhead result is displayed. This novel approach works well. >> It would be nice to get to where we could autoconfigure a router = using >> tools like these with no human intervention. This includes bandwidth >> estimation. >>=20 >>> The overhead for the particular setup I use was 40 for PPPoE, and 10 = for >>> PPPoA. >>>=20 >>> The default you suggest is a suitable starting point, I suggest. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 04/01/14 18:16, Rich Brown wrote: >>>> QUESTION #5: I still don=92t have any great answers for the Link = Layer >>>> Adaptation overhead descriptions and recommendations. In an earlier = message, >>>> (see >>>> = https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/2013-December/001914= .html >>>> and following messages), Fred Stratton described the overheads = carried by >>>> various options, and Sebastian Moeller also gave some useful = advice. >>>>=20 >>>> After looking at the options, I despair of giving people a clear >>>> recommendation that would be optimal for their equipment. = Consequently, I >>>> believe the best we can do is come up with =93good enough=94 = recommendations >>>> that are not wrong, and still give decent performance. >>>>=20 >>>> In this spirit, I have changed Draft #3 of the =93Setting up SQM=94 = page to >>>> reflect this understanding. See >>>> = http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWr= t_310 >>>>=20 >>>> ADSL/ATM link: Choose =93ADSL/ATM", and set Per Packet = Overhead to >>>> 40 >>>> VDSL2 link: Choose =93VDSL=94, and set Per Packet Overhead = to 8 >>>> Other kind of link (e.g., Cable, Fiber, Ethernet, other not >>>> listed): Choose =93None (default)=94, and set Per Packet Overhead = to 0 >>>>=20 >>>> NB: I have changed the first menu choice to =93ADSL/ATM=94 and the = second to >>>> =93VDSL=94 in the description. I would ask that we change to GUI to = reflect >>>> those names as well. This makes it far easier/less confusing to = talk about >>>> the options. >>>>=20 >>>> As always, I welcome help in setting out clear recommendations that = work >>>> well for the vast majority of people who try CeroWrt. Thanks. >>>>=20 >>>> Rich >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel