From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) (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 724FA21F30F for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:00:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n12so2450687wgh.18 for ; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 18:00:10 -0800 (PST) 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=ZPRnbqg8uc48rbpzlGKYuMzH+fsPeD/yQ61alZVSXvM=; b=Rjcx00jZtDzpGHB/H4ywWSnm8jD1zTapObuj1kKTLUlYTtjuYAObyNawKDzb8tREva NLcNNN0Ql5vDeNT+q86jf2xJM/tPtdFJeCwZkbDhuWR9+QlKBjM9MoryWswFQgGxH6rX Y1sfMnOmCjLenliDq9c0DafSZKvCblewZIknBqk2stH9sqsJBAUdS9XdVT4um8HDyQTu EVm5iolvqueG2dtNEDQuLqzd7v2X+kxxKEV4Ps9ODclIvLirO8ws6dPXZV9LaOpYVaw/ se4kewI5hc5yuKc3WPlmK818d5UtedI8bW9XCt1uQM8jMm4XYDmWeEad2Q9ys+dZhrQ3 JSng== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.6.106 with SMTP id z10mr3385602wjz.1.1393812010653; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 18:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.8.1 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:00:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3C58F2F0-60C0-4EC3-A45F-6895227DC889@gmail.com> References: <5EC471C4-64B9-4D83-AB78-5219E2090886@gmail.com> <78561C59-590A-421E-A92D-7B93B084A6AA@gmail.com> <3C58F2F0-60C0-4EC3-A45F-6895227DC889@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 18:00:10 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Rich Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Better results from CeroWrt 3.10.28-16 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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 02:00:12 -0000 it's in tc's output qdisc nfq_codel 120: parent 1:12 limit 1001p flows 1024 quantum 300 target 14.8ms interval 109.8ms Sent 122649261 bytes 332175 pkt (dropped 129389, overlimits 0 requeues 0) ^^^^^^ backlog 0b 0p requeues 0. maxpacket 0 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 37646 ecn_mark 0 new_flows_len 1 old_flows_len 2 It's late in england. going to bed before ietf tomorrow/ (I don't have a mac anymore and never thought to do a caipture at this rate= . I think the mac is iw4, but as we have 4 uploads going we are effectively iw16 at rrul startup, and yet, here we are trying to cut latencies to 15ms. what I'm interested in determining is if the mac flows are experiencing RTO= s, and/or falling back to iw2... For way more detail on the joys of iwX at high and low bandwidths: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6928/?include_text=3D1 JG also has a rant on iw10 considered harmful. This is iw4 considered harmf= ul at speeds below 2mbit.... I have been trying to come up with a way to for default gws to communicate a good iw size for a while and/or have a plot of behaviors at this speed. On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Rich Brown wrote: > Dave, > >> Target 30ms would be interesting. 30+ % packet loss on this test (and >> your link is still operable!) > > Wait. How can you detect the packet loss from the data I sent along? > >> At your speed range the behavior of the tcp upload is governed by the >> initial window size more than anything else. I doubt the >> mac adjusts that properly so it keeps hammering away at it... my >> concern from looking at your upload graphs was that you were >> actually getting hammered so hard you were actually going through RTO >> (receive timeout) on the uploads. > > Yuck. That would be bad. > > re: Wireshark. I'll try to get it soon. > > Thanks. > > Rich --=20 Dave T=E4ht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.= html