From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (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 B824721F3E9 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 16:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id e131so83537oig.36 for ; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:07:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wD/YXoRzhhMxsI6cUmTe8NB9EEpz9TZMPuvpS+vq1hc=; b=nM6lZ2bDof1+iV2emdZ5LCZ3WzvVda8+vQi9jVBf+/He/SrLqE2juzgaLFxfZzk/nZ viTnqj6jeeHe0a3pqcRJ95/MmXH/lPvYsrkrUZGJGEqnZPrUQZC1mpWP+XtglKaofCTY 8JLFhUfOofW71vy2d00wlugylKKrFvRxAJWR6n6wzTTJFXmq4tqMyg/4AkO7P8mujAwK D/jLR+FZ0K9RtYQ/QPRT/A7L1rtfw989PEn7QLAQattVO1TAdmQYupxng6mWrDMHAwk/ 3gOkrW8fqSR/wK23f7QyQI9PIMi+F9ICpZI4EyouRFnypnyZLEPsxN/oTrCn9Fg+CTxM tpug== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.211.42 with SMTP id mz10mr2561876obc.10.1412291257293; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.227.76 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 16:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 16:07:37 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: David Lang Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Alpha Sparc , openwrt-devel , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] better ingress shaping somehow 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: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 23:08:07 -0000 On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:54 AM, David Lang wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Alpha Sparc wrote: > >> How good is the throughput on CeroWrt compared to OpenWrt ? > > > The focus of CeroWrt is on reducing latency, not increasing throughput. I= f > you run into really badd bufferbloat problems without these scrips, then > these scripts can result more more 'goodput' (useable data as opposed to > 'throughput' bits on the wire) getting through, but in the usual case the= re > will be a (slight) reduction in the peak throughput. > > This is especially so on the inbound side of things because the router is > having to work indirectly to throttle the senders so that they don't > overload the router at the other end of the connection. > > I beleive that on the WNDR3800, it's able to work up to about 50Mb with t= he > existing configurations. A faster CPU would do better, a slower one worse= . Actually it appears that cache is very important on fixing inbound rate sha= ping. The octeon in the edgerouter lite peaks out at above 60mbits also, but the bigger, fatter pro product actually manages quite a bit better (with increa= sing inaccuracy however). See below... > The re-write that Dave is talking about is hoting to improve this. From t= he > pastebin link Dave listed below, they have it up to ~80Mb now Oh, no, that's an x86 result. It's barely a blip on that cpu use though, so= I am encouraged so far. Haven't got around to porting it to mips, too many non-working ideas elsewhere in it, ENOTIME. But: the real killer, on ingress shaping, is the call to skb_clone in sch_ingress->act_mirred path, I think. If it were possible to have sch_cake replace sch_ingress, that would be a huge win, but following the call path for why that must be cloned has thus far resisted my archeological expertise. An network ninja is needed here.... >>> And Jonathon morton has been pouring it all into >>> pure C - with an integral bandwidth shaper that we >>> hope will be faster and more efficient than htb. >>> >>> See an early result: >>> >>> http://pastebin.com/zz06WhJr >>> >>> It takes much of the heavy lifting out of the existing >>> sqm scripts. >>> >>> tc qdisc add dev eth1 root cake bandwidth 80mbit >>> >>> >>> So I don't know where to go. Certainly I'd like to >>> see the battle hardened sqm scripts (which are more >>> flexible than the C code above) get more widely used >>> and in BB. >>> >>> openwrt users can do that today by adding the ceropackages repo to thei= r >>> build system. >>> or just installing the sqm-scripts and luci-app-sqm. >>> >>> or we can clean it up further for openwrt mainline. >>> >>> But I haven't seen one core openwrt dev say, yes, we want this mainline= d, >>> here's what you need to fix, so I'm inclined to go back to my cave, get >>> more sleep, and work on the successor. --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/make-wifi-fast