From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x234.google.com (mail-qt0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC0E83B2CD; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 11so30903612qtc.0; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:09:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zCfYc8bd/keLZXSIATBamulgeoL+PBM5U6g9UpiBJco=; b=StgZXtk9vp9jRn+ooiRr0HqnmnIpp+fQ7kAsQka3JCaHgNTpG8g968XmembXcxCqFF Q9s77cJeEaSfWt2780ktQX3I/hZrX6l7lODe5omSOws5g0f53mmwEFalHs3Sx3eyoyIp OBGpIOcc94yY6SrEAb3HqRpaNmRMTNihyLxkeclD7NIdPw3vrOSoys8ZhH5coHINmSOd Eu0dydTmhOBgeB3pifYJyQhMxtLBF0Nh772Hz+OjdGVZAj4f7zmj3Lkt9KcDuLP5JN8X c7Fjkjl0RXpi/U5a8S4A3ikaMG82LiWBGlgE8bHW4hAHZtxiRRV4MIcyAuLo47143qDt EEkA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zCfYc8bd/keLZXSIATBamulgeoL+PBM5U6g9UpiBJco=; b=it5MjZGOe5cC1lR2VlEjE5FWkIYjnEvkj1i6YXP8608mKC9EMTJjSNk0VO6LLnGR4d Rl3aIJu34IkJfgssOjBaDlQIlyzNS6athJV2Uwr4unuxytDYQ1nUi9GQBmuyll2J3+gr efBG7Bn3p0FK45+Waoo1s24iEpKCt76BzK3lFPXjlZnar/6sGCoFDtlidskVaiq48tVQ An8SChhlRjiuIfozk11EdIUzh9wco9lebZ+JpNUHHxaikBAjvEJDopcDD8aNhx3xa+dS tlhv39MPtSJsIQOAw3Rcxfk8nIpksP1NcGZdRHuVUrtKtOTFlFwpZWTiMA0o71D2wu4E MKng== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwM9YJZtJ+GYdpcNqNmxzY+Hf3wc2OE4BZxGIAU5ZZUh5pwUW5NQlGqYJNAHEUcfTPkp79lmKROhCIlXmQ== X-Received: by 10.237.34.122 with SMTP id o55mr45431576qtc.15.1474502959307; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:09:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.137.214 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:09:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Dave Taht Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:09:18 -0700 Message-ID: To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: bloat , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , BBR Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] taking apart BBR's behaviors in flent X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 00:09:19 -0000 I have pushed an updated set of bbr verses cubic tests (formerly cake/fq_codel/pie/bfifo_256/cake_flowblind) now including pfifo_100, pfifo_1000, and a CMTS/cable modem emulation that dates back to the network conditions we had in 2011: 20Mbit down, 5Mbit up, when the bufferbloat project began. http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/bbr-comprehensive.tgz I note that my conditions are reversed throughout: "up" is from the server to the client (20Mbit). Mae Culpa: I dare not change anything on the clients right now as other testing is going on. So what I'm measuring and emulating here, is downstream bufferbloat (CMTS to cablemodem to end user), rather than what Jim Gettys started with (seeing uplink bloat measured in seconds). Since 2011, download and upload speeds have improved (I think 100/20Mbit is most common nowadays(?), modem buffering on some models has declined somewhat, CMTS configurations have got better - but that emulation remains close to correct and in some cases, is much less bloated than the results many cable users still get today. I also have dsl, and other emulations, but I figure this dataset is enough to go on for a while. (since 2011 Web pages have got "tighter", uTP has deployed to a larger extent, BQL and other mods to the linux stack are now common, etc, etc. also) I did produce a couple graphs. 2011 in all it's cubic bloated glory: http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/bbr-comprehensive/bufferbloat_20Mbit_2011_glory_cubic.svg vs BBR competing with itself: http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/bbr-comprehensive/bufferbloat_bbr_2016.svg And one showing a full fledged simultaneous up/down test with bbr + cubic on the increasingly misnamed squarewave test. http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/bbr-comprehensive/bbr_vs_cubic_20Mbit_cablemodem_emulation.png I do not have more time or energy to review this further today, nor look at the captures. Probably. Wet Paint! Enjoy the data. Happy graphing! PS: one hysterical thing that happened: when I'd started pushing this data to my git repository and website, I'd forgotten I'd left the cable modem emulation on and rtt 48 stuff enabled - as well as cubic - and I had to endure watching the darn thing slow, stop, resume in a burst, and so on, for what felt like ages.