From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (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 E5F4B21FF0F for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle-7.home.lan ([217.237.70.193]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MUoma-1ZUD721uyS-00Y6K3; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:43:48 +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: <55A01FEE.10108@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:43:46 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <559FA8D4.2030305@imap.cc> <559FDC38.9010400@imap.cc> <559FE294.60801@gmail.com> <55A00E06.3000000@imap.cc> <55A01E2A.4050508@imap.cc> <55A01FEE.10108@gmail.com> To: Alan Jenkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:SfTwLQgyB/W3YL6oBxAOWYmFC/pkKjtM3KSeaAmxA6xxZ6V04mT PZ249N8SPKpVB4Lj2xx4eGss8aVxkzwrIi+WHAz9SkqqQRWMrVeZW+jiVGEiEq9ITpWPbIA B9WjWRIIp4Rd7pEL5SKJkTXOqycaxtduyd8bgRKr462rCxQNO8YiXs+v4rHn/+ESZGdBdGt hedbBHRx3eBRsrnkhFFNA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:uoVWeqASQfQ=:3KSHBSTvPuyRDc2jGij1eQ dJe8VK6aepbIwojcD1dNxWYAcFLMhOpDLJ2u7jvhi0ZiuoK/fw1bpB8W37qA+ri/xv2BLP2fg tFZbrSnvMJMW11ZYaCFT2LN9vhoh+DawdqMm1kmijjI7p/lxzuYz2iFGmmBoPaLhEdgm8IivR m4sDTj4/E9mu1bLvF8CO1iexuv1is0moVtsYcPdwjRKvCkH5POG1ySx0O7j3CwhsW50bIJlWV HIOZ6Zs0wmtDpyvVZvUqo6pONlNEIdFbBdWYotFZygmtyJQ0swXDFfBDraV/DExAABMrHP95b quW1EfujMQTrh0WusFwnTl37CywewWwl/p+gl76g9nrMFEdh8Yti49PyMsZNrgBkr9U7/7ym7 Ne9m6ityaALJ1akDCHPfUPwDWjk8iwIdWgaVSq6FRoNxPz032zjLGd5lAyc7H1YAhXy/gC+AY Q8dW/+tWEqAkvQGXrfglHsYSlNG8DyVlSd0z3swMafr64VQeWaCaI2TrQsXy1ejQogSBeHqJU RUlQ1HbUubSzZyt4IQZ0d7pri8TIpaCmKepd+NbzspOqW4wk5dIMcVUEOy0Fe8SflVjdnt6YO CCl519ZByKRCVcNYUDV8U5oMan8R7ktmYrViXX8eoLX0gtjwDFecmP9Hkc+hZ8rIE6BkHJgB0 f72YUI5WHNm/YvtcWyo4LKoRoINkx0Za0AxC1cusOgyOw9b2XtHSnfYRiAk/ZXnoZPxM= Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Correct syntax for cake commands and atm issues. 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: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:44:22 -0000 Hi Alan, On Jul 10, 2015, at 21:41 , Alan Jenkins = wrote: > On 10/07/15 20:34, Fred Stratton wrote: >> bridge sync is circa 10 000 kbit/s >>=20 >> with the cake option in sqm enabled >>=20 >> config queue 'eth1' >> option qdisc_advanced '0' >> option enabled '1' >> option interface 'pppoe-wan' >> option upload '850' >> option qdisc 'cake' >> option script 'simple_pppoe.qos' >=20 > Sorry, you want simple.qos. simple_pppoe is for if you had set = interface to the corresponding ethX. =20 This is correct. > I think Seb said there's not much reason to do that anymore, now we = correctly handle interfaces going up and down. ("hotplug=94). I should delete it one of those days, it is still in to remind = me to finally switch the tc filters to hashes to see how this improves = the speed=85 Best Regards Sebastian >=20 >> option linklayer 'atm' >> option overhead '40' >> option download '8500' >>=20 >> tc -s qdisc show dev pppoe-wan >> qdisc htb 1: root refcnt 2 r2q 10 default 12 direct_packets_stat 0 = direct_qlen 3 >> Sent 101336 bytes 440 pkt (dropped 2, overlimits 66 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >> qdisc cake 110: parent 1:11 unlimited diffserv4 flows raw >> Sent 4399 bytes 25 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >> Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 >> rate 0bit 0bit 0bit 0bit >> target 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms >> interval 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms >> Pk delay 0us 0us 7us 2us >> Av delay 0us 0us 0us 0us >> Sp delay 0us 0us 0us 0us >> pkts 0 0 22 3 >> way inds 0 0 0 0 >> way miss 0 0 22 2 >> way cols 0 0 0 0 >> bytes 0 0 3392 1007 >> drops 0 0 0 0 >> marks 0 0 0 0 >> qdisc cake 120: parent 1:12 unlimited diffserv4 flows raw >> Sent 96937 bytes 415 pkt (dropped 2, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >> Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 >> rate 0bit 0bit 0bit 0bit >> target 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms >> interval 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms >> Pk delay 0us 28.0ms 0us 0us >> Av delay 0us 1.2ms 0us 0us >> Sp delay 0us 4us 0us 0us >> pkts 0 417 0 0 >> way inds 0 0 0 0 >> way miss 0 23 0 0 >> way cols 0 0 0 0 >> bytes 0 98951 0 0 >> drops 0 2 0 0 >> marks 0 0 0 0 >> qdisc cake 130: parent 1:13 unlimited diffserv4 flows raw >> Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >> Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 >> rate 0bit 0bit 0bit 0bit >> target 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms >> interval 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms >> Pk delay 0us 0us 0us 0us >> Av delay 0us 0us 0us 0us >> Sp delay 0us 0us 0us 0us >> pkts 0 0 0 0 >> way inds 0 0 0 0 >> way miss 0 0 0 0 >> way cols 0 0 0 0 >> bytes 0 0 0 0 >> drops 0 0 0 0 >> marks 0 0 0 0 >> qdisc cake 140: parent 1:14 unlimited diffserv4 flows raw >> Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >> Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 >> rate 0bit 0bit 0bit 0bit >> target 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms >> interval 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms >> Pk delay 0us 0us 0us 0us >> Av delay 0us 0us 0us 0us >> Sp delay 0us 0us 0us 0us >> pkts 0 0 0 0 >> way inds 0 0 0 0 >> way miss 0 0 0 0 >> way cols 0 0 0 0 >> bytes 0 0 0 0 >> drops 0 0 0 0 >> marks 0 0 0 0 >> qdisc ingress ffff: parent ffff:fff1 ---------------- >> Sent 273341 bytes 435 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0) >> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On 10/07/15 19:46, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >>> Hi Fred, >>>=20 >>> your results seem to indicate that cake is not active at all, as the = latency under load is abysmal (a quick check is to look at the median in = relation to the min and the 90% number, in your examples all of these = are terrible). Could you please post the result of the following = commands on your router: >>> 1) cat /etc/config/sqm >>> 2) tc -d qdisc >>> 3) tc -d class show dev pppoe-wan >>> 4) tc -d class show dev ifb4pppoe-wqn >>> 5) /etc/init.d/sqm stop >>> 6) /etc/init.d/sqm start >>>=20 >>> hopefully these give some insight what might have happened. >>>=20 >>> And finally I would love to learn the output of: >>> sh betterspeedtest.sh -4 -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -t 150 -p = netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -n 4 ; sh netperfrunner.sh -4 -H = netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -t 150 -p netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -n 4 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Many Thanks & Best Regards >>> Sebastian >>>=20 >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 20:25 , Fred Stratton = wrote: >>>=20 >>>> By your command >>>> Rebooted to rerun qdisc script, rather than changing qdiscs from = the command-line, so suboptimal process as end-point changed. >>>>=20 >>>> script configuring qdiscs and overhead 40 on >>>>=20 >>>> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p 2.96.48.1 >>>> 2015-07-10 18:22:08 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with = 4 streams down and up while pinging 2.96.48.1. Takes about 60 seconds. >>>> Download: 6.73 Mbps >>>> Upload: 0.58 Mbps >>>> Latency: (in msec, 62 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >>>> Min: 24.094 >>>> 10pct: 172.654 >>>> Median: 260.563 >>>> Avg: 253.580 >>>> 90pct: 330.003 >>>> Max: 411.145 >>>>=20 >>>> script configuring qdiscs on flows raw >>>>=20 >>>> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p >>>> 78.145.32.1 >>>> 2015-07-10 18:49:21 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with = 4 streams down and up while pinging 78.145.32.1. Takes about 60 seconds. >>>> Download: 6.75 Mbps >>>> Upload: 0.59 Mbps >>>> Latency: (in msec, 59 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >>>> Min: 23.605 >>>> 10pct: 169.789 >>>> Median: 282.155 >>>> Avg: 267.099 >>>> 90pct: 333.283 >>>> Max: 376.509 >>>>=20 >>>> script configuring qdiscs and overhead 36 on >>>>=20 >>>> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p >>>> 80.44.96.1 >>>> 2015-07-10 19:20:18 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with = 4 streams down and up while pinging 80.44.96.1. Takes about 60 seconds. >>>> Download: 6.56 Mbps >>>> Upload: 0.59 Mbps >>>> Latency: (in msec, 62 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >>>> Min: 22.975 >>>> 10pct: 195.473 >>>> Median: 281.756 >>>> Avg: 271.609 >>>> 90pct: 342.130 >>>> Max: 398.573 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 10/07/15 16:19, Alan Jenkins wrote: >>>>> I'm glad to hear there's a working version (even if it's not in = the current build :). >>>>>=20 >>>>> Do you have measurable improvements with overhead configured (v.s. = unconfigured)? >>>>>=20 >>>>> I've used netperfrunner from CeroWrtScripts, e.g. >>>>>=20 >>>>> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p $ISP_ROUTER >>>>>=20 >>>>> I believe accounting for overhead helps on this two-way test, = because a) it saturates the uplink b) about half that bandwidth is tiny = ack packets (depending on bandwidth asymmetry). And small packets have = proportionally high overhead. >>>>>=20 >>>>> (But it seems to only make a small difference for me, which always = surprises Seb). >>>>>=20 >>>>> Alan >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 10/07/15 15:52, Fred Stratton wrote: >>>>>> You are absolutely correct. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I tried both a numeric overhead value, and alternatively = 'pppoe-vcmux' >>>>>> and 'ether-fcs' in the build I crafted based on r46006, which is = lupin >>>>>> undeclared version 2. Everything works as stated. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On lupin undeclared version 4, the current release based on = r46117, the >>>>>> values were not recognised. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I had cake running on a Lantiq ADSL gateway running the same = r46006 >>>>>> build. Unfortunately this was bricked by attempts to get homenet >>>>>> working, so I have nothing to report about gateway usage at = present. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 10/07/15 13:57, Jonathan Morton wrote: >>>>>>> You're already using correct syntax - I've written it to be = quite >>>>>>> lenient and use sensible defaults for missing information. There = are >>>>>>> several sets of keywords and parameters which are mutually = orthogonal, >>>>>>> and don't depend on each other, so "besteffort" has nothing to = do with >>>>>>> "overhead" or "atm". >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> What's probably happening is that you're using a slightly old = version >>>>>>> of the cake kernel module which lacks the overhead parameter = entirely, >>>>>>> but a more up to date tc which does support it. We've seen this >>>>>>> combination crop up ourselves recently. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> - Jonathan Morton >>>>>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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