Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Routing limit question

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3424 bytes --]

Sorry there are two conversational threads here on hynyman s thread they
are benchmarking vs an anctiontec.

Also it does seem like fiddling with the burst parameter to htb seems
warrented.
On Oct 19, 2014 12:33 PM, "Ernesto Elias" <ernestogelias@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not using the actiontec at all. I'm using the wndr3800
> On Oct 19, 2014 3:22 PM, "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks to me as if the actiontec has pretty good qos all by itself.
>> On Oct 19, 2014 11:56 AM, "Sebastian Moeller" <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> HI Dave,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 19, 2014, at 20:24 , Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On at least one verizon device I've tried it appeared that they had
>>> > SFQ or something similar on egress from the modem.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/RRUL_Rogues_Gallery#Verizon-FIOS-Testing-at-25Mbit-up-and-25Mbit-down
>>> >
>>> > So you only needed to shape the download. which is good as we start
>>> > peaking out at 50Mbit download total. But only measurements can tell.
>>>
>>>         So on Hnymans community openwrt build a few fortunate ones on
>>> excellent lines seem to get decent results even at 110-120 Mbps combined:
>>> https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=250989#p250989
>>> and:
>>> https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=251013#p251013
>>> I have no idea why and both lines were reasonably well-behaved even
>>> without any AQM/QOS...
>>>
>>> Also I wonder whether when we increase the quantum for higher rates to
>>> give HTB some breathing room, whether we also should increase burst and
>>> cburst? My hunch is that quantum affects the switching between the leaves,
>>> while busts and cburst should allow to dump more data to lower layers
>>> inside each leaf qdisc. And since we are running behind, maybe taking a
>>> bigger shovel can help some. (I assume this needs to be titrated not to
>>> kill latency under load, but if we can only effective have HTB execute x
>>> times per second we can easily afford to dump
>>> line-rate/maxHTB_iteratin_rate bytes per opportunity, no?) My own internet
>>> link is way to slow to test this...
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>         Sebastian
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Ernesto Elias <
>>> ernestogelias@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Hello everyone!
>>> >> I have a question about the wndr3800 routing limit. I went back to
>>> the older
>>> >> submissions to see if I can find what would be the answer for it. But
>>> in my
>>> >> search I haven't managed to find a definite answer. From what I seen
>>> about
>>> >> setting the limit it can do with SQM is 50, 60, or 80 mbit. I'm just
>>> >> wondering if anyone can shed some light for me here as I have verizon
>>> fios
>>> >> and my speeds are 50 dl/50 ul. Thank you guys very much!
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>>> >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Dave Täht
>>> >
>>> > thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcoming_Talks
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>>> > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>>
>>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5124 bytes --]