From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (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 D3265202102 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hn9so3861618wib.4 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:35:51 -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 :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8XDobKU20QgNNIcUDhdeXVPmQ6YChmN1SM3c5x7pHlk=; b=MDC4S7YPp5oUy1JFp3BIpzB+ve6OxboCYzzDi9ZC90LnFqkxhMbizjiCjPZ+rC5OAv 886EVctyuDZZ+ENXuz5KUVKUmRMVi9SQX/AyT9fjcCpCeUy7zSKXFzAF1GZahcuPNeta BQu329Cdyd3n+d0uh9BIEa4PD8X6t/KZfI2yp2xOjgTqGrU3/vISjGHbuP6svZAHiMlQ AdH+jamC06hc5eKzS63QSQkapHcTKBP2rWDX3EC6vdcqrIR132k8thrAM04PM5SoT3F3 VaM9CEG/CgdMe4TED6kj/b4YEVKdE/eLRFumGVGInvc2dfUN6XiWupTXKaiT+UZHNRGt cg6A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.37.178 with SMTP id z18mr15412665wij.46.1395156951412; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.8.1 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:35:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <532864A8.2030404@etorok.net> References: <53281934.90707@etorok.net> <91F2F3A6-2DFA-4CC9-879B-28BD0A8AFBA2@gmx.de> <532864A8.2030404@etorok.net> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:35:51 -0400 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=F6r=F6k_Edwin?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] cerowrt-3.10.32-9 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: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:35:54 -0000 On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:22 AM, T=F6r=F6k Edwin wrote: > On 03/18/2014 04:21 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> Regrettably the SQM system on the wndr series of hardware maxes out on >> CPU at about 50Mbit down, 10Mbit up, or any combination thereof (e.g >> 25/25 works). If you want to apply this code at higher rates, routing >> hardware with more "oomph" is needed. >> >> I would be interested in a rrul test of your 50Mbit system. My tests >> of verizon at 25/25 showed them well managed on the up, far less well >> managed on the down, so in your 50Mbit design you might want to merely >> control the down with SQM. > > Host: Linux 3.14-rc5, AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor, cpufreq set t= o performance, cpb disabled > Router: NETGEAR WNDR3700v2, 3.10.32-9 > Target: OpenBSD 5.4, QEMU Virtual CPU version (cpu64-rhel6), 3300.54 MHz > > Host <-> Router connected via gigabit ethernet. > > I confirmed that my target can do >50Mbit to another server, netperf show= s 128*10^6 bit/s / 108 * 10^6 bit/s. > > SQM with link-layer none settings: > * download speed: 46000 kbit/s, upload speed 50000 kbit/s (~95% of measu= red speed on ISP's speedtest site). > * fq_codel (default) > * simple.qos > * link-layer: none > * results: > > SQM off: > > SQM with overhead Ethernet overhead 30: > SQM with overhead Ethernet overhead 22: > > Should I also run a rrul46/rrul46compete test? If you can test ipv6 too, that would be great. > Best regards, > --Edwin At 8ms of induced extra latency without SQM there doesn't seem to be much point in running it on your platform. It does look like you are tail dropping... A thought would be to leave it off and try running your link at 100Mbit rather than gige. # ethtool -s ge00 advertise 0x008 and see if fq_codel alone can break up bursts better. I note that linux 3.14 TCP is now so highly debloated that it is really har= d to compare the results we get with it with any TCP before it - the TSO offload fixes, tcp small queues, etc, have really shortened and made more accurate the control loops. second note is that the wndr can only forward packets at about 330Mbit without firewall rules. Add in the firewall rules and you are looking at sub 120mbit forwarding performance. I am jealous of your link. :) --=20 Dave T=E4ht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.= html