From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB3FE21F166 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:31:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 17so21641788iea.2 for ; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:31:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Cx1SrUe4tihz2im8ro9+pKJ98xHkcE4IFl7FlhU76Zg=; b=WQl90hh25NRngu1MzcP3Rtyql2I/n8UF0YiSMx1w/auGnnVehUf0oU40t3tm1Fvm9g lgi5OGrdIotRoh9xDxcy4rF5YHe3JNG5Na9euw4/KqRfOPrGQR6XPQvXhtRxNUKNMp4w gYF3Tc9JnF2WWH7Gh7oPkxSufgGM2WCNp7LO+hEXvaLg2E6Cp1H9HgY5knDbcyEGTWds aZDkvNGVyHxiFJYkAZPssb2sWKDmesuc1/ufMW3ImPfGMv7lrQlUt/WrTOdz6zle7T4p TTdnuNQG+nLp/5FEZowpbOLCI0YMIJ80PTgEtbS8TZv0Kovr6lPPfTH0cSQw6Gyr8/Pu jLrg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.213.73 with SMTP id nq9mr2740573igc.27.1357450291818; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:31:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.135.39 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:31:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:31:31 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: William Katsak Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Anyone using PPPoE with Sugarland? 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 Jan 2013 05:31:32 -0000 Netanalyzer's metrics are wrong when used with a fair queuing or codel based system. They use a single udp flood to measure the "queue" when in the "fq" portion of fq_codel there are 1024 by default, and when codel kicks in, queue depth is reduced eventually to a level that tcp would expect, but has no effect on a single udp flood. Use a ping vs a big upload as your test, or the rrul test, after setting your up/download appropriately. On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 1:37 PM, William Katsak wrote: > Hello, > > I am experimenting with using Cero/Sugarland on a PPPoE connection, and c= an't seem to find a config of simple_qos that works well. > > The service is DSL, PPPoE, 3M/768K. Without any qos, the router works wel= l, as expected. When I try to use simple_qos, the clients have trouble load= ing websites (hangs while loading, etc). > > Netlyzer shows upstream buffering of about 650ms, consistently. I have tr= ied various higher and lower values for UPLINK and DOWNLINK, but nothing se= ems to help. Anyway, I think 15-20% below link should be fine. > > Here is my config: > UPLINK=3D550 > DOWNLINK=3D1900 > DEV=3Difb0 > IFACE=3Dge00 > DEPTH=3D42 > TC=3D/usr/sbin/tc > FLOWS=3D8000 > PERTURB=3D"perturb 0" # Permutation is costly, disable > FLOWS=3D16000 # > BQL_MAX=3D3000 # it is important to factor this into the RED calc > > CEIL=3D$UPLINK > MTU=3D1492 > ADSLL=3D"" > PPOE=3Dyes > > Couple of things I am unsure about: > 1) Should the IFACE be ge00 or pppoe-ge00? > 2) Should the MTU be the pppoe mtu (1492) or the ethernet (1500) > > One last thing: I have the lan split up into VLAN interfaces se00.1, se00= .100, and se00.200. Everything otherwise works as expected with these, but = could the naming be breaking something? > > If anyone is willing to share a working configuration it would be much ap= preciated. > > Thanks, > Bill Katsak > > _______________________________________________ > 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