From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F17821F2AE for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 17:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q5so3179538wiv.13 for ; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:57:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lSSlOLI4H6kxjnYDszplHmGGC7nzHJdPUqTdeczJx/E=; b=h16SNfKMjZO5GqRU1rD3lv31g59E9G8om4bEET8V2GI5zoQoU+3FwzgMQDlc4SNqzc rhFU8Vxet/S/1oArk7GldxityIHvXWW2ZjY+ug0G8uOF/zyqeDshPaEEUPsd3zdffEA0 meEgjD52e9Pf8AUzEC8mtd536dbMyAyzW6mYovoeyHY6MORKZK3p6By9xLG8ZPUmn9z+ AUlgxSSqlvMXigjiSMmYZJbbun45m5Vg7aOIu7SE5EF7dZeXNOKaqaAAJX1gDb9Vt8M6 NrnSqoONmW4hE9gqsn23JOGnf7zGUXcdd1lfNuNwKvTkVWvqq0WWxuyl/di7beC120cs S2EA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.78.225 with SMTP id e1mr6723604wix.17.1396745864810; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:57:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.8.1 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 17:57:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140406000858.GN9694@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> References: <20140406000236.GM9694@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> <20140406000858.GN9694@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 17:57:44 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released 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, 06 Apr 2014 00:57:47 -0000 On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > And IPv6 over the HE tunnel: > > root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh -H netperf6.richb-hanover.com > Testing against netperf6.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 = seconds in each direction) > .........................................................................= ... > Download: 21.56 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 77 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 14.477 > 10pct: 15.469 > Median: 17.646 > Avg: 18.906 > 90pct: 23.540 > Max: 36.302 > .........................................................................= ... > Upload: 5.85 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 14.589 > 10pct: 15.579 > Median: 18.156 > Avg: 18.323 > 90pct: 21.192 > Max: 25.282 That's pretty lame compared to your ipv4 results, but the length of the path looks the same... puzzling... How much further (or less far) is rich's box (traceroute6 -n netperf6.richb-hanover.com) on ipv6 vs ipv4 (traceroute -n ) I have certainly seen bottlenecks, excessive delay, and packet loss on he's gateways. An "mtr" might be revealing during the test for spotting packet loss further on the path. > > > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:02:37PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: >> Here are some betterspeedtest.sh results for 3.10.36-1: >> >> First, without SQM enabled: >> >> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh >> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 = seconds in each direction) >> ............................................................ >> Download: 52.39 Mbps >> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >> Min: 15.281 >> 10pct: 18.302 >> Median: 28.502 >> Avg: 32.891 >> 90pct: 56.776 >> Max: 74.282 >> ............................................................. >> Upload: 11.07 Mbps >> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >> Min: 15.341 >> 10pct: 18.669 >> Median: 82.480 >> Avg: 126.662 >> 90pct: 248.102 >> Max: 278.644 >> >> And now, with SQM set to 80% up/down numbers from above: >> >> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh >> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 = seconds in each direction) >> ............................................................ >> Download: 32.84 Mbps >> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >> Min: 15.623 >> 10pct: 16.077 >> Median: 17.634 >> Avg: 17.982 >> 90pct: 19.653 >> Max: 23.272 >> ............................................................. >> Upload: 8.25 Mbps >> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >> Min: 16.001 >> 10pct: 17.623 >> Median: 19.796 >> Avg: 19.820 >> 90pct: 21.716 >> Max: 23.228 >> root@cerowrt:~# >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: >> > + openwrt merge >> > ++ fix for dhcpv6 renew problem >> > + actually tested for an hour so far on 5.4ghz, with a us countrycode >> > and wpa+psk enabled... >> > >> > Get it at: >> > >> > http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-1/ >> > >> > but: there isn't much other reason to upgrade to this... >> > >> > - no progress on the wifi bug - but I am beating up wifi with a variet= y of >> > devices and scripts today hoping to make it fail, and bringing up a >> > bunch more tomorrow. >> > >> > - toke's script relies on stratum '16' changing, and it doesn't with o= penwrt's >> > ntp, it seems.... > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel --=20 Dave T=E4ht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.= html