From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) (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 3BB99208A7C for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id y10so5897934wgg.13 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:21:08 -0700 (PDT) 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=mkrBpQJJx5XtnFEui8Ef7c6mHDTefWI9TMWJmHIUKsU=; b=EX2P5pk+ifNJPRA0D19RmvkF0iBNjVuAmxQXuhvAndwz7PI6wJ2Iq+RGRehKFHix7q 0VygfDlbHOy6RHS4EGM5FlFtVWxaC0LbuJ3KSXeLoGEHdsU9oFXsRq3/rhD2tZtp87k+ 3E3sY8KNiXBUiC6Kk4eiqIKkgc8+aCOYLkctUiEeGwIjOiT5Sm8TRVrcqcJD3mkyNokP SciPjPxXYxdjgUAcy6GRJwFMZrViM/eDr5OBMiL0yMI1PfCrgF6kPv40gD3tGyvA8kwq VJjVt17NKWHr3WTdKWHa+9D9Ea2CmJhhqUdjcP3DOjBBqn64MtYgcU6pV9xHnBnNm+gp Lh2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.195.13.103 with SMTP id ex7mr23685898wjd.3.1395152468157; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.8.1 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:21:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <91F2F3A6-2DFA-4CC9-879B-28BD0A8AFBA2@gmx.de> References: <53281934.90707@etorok.net> <91F2F3A6-2DFA-4CC9-879B-28BD0A8AFBA2@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:21:07 -0400 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Sebastian Moeller Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?T=F6r=F6k_Edwin?= , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] cerowrt-3.10.32-9 released 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: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:21:10 -0000 Regrettably the SQM system on the wndr series of hardware maxes out on CPU at about 50Mbit down, 10Mbit up, or any combination thereof (e.g 25/25 works). If you want to apply this code at higher rates, routing hardware with more "oomph" is needed. I would be interested in a rrul test of your 50Mbit system. My tests of verizon at 25/25 showed them well managed on the up, far less well managed on the down, so in your 50Mbit design you might want to merely control the down with SQM. On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Hi Edwin, > > > On Mar 18, 2014, at 11:00 , T=F6r=F6k Edwin wrote: > >> On 03/16/2014 09:58 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> Get it at: >>> >>> http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.32-9/ >>> >>> I've been running this a few days now with no problems. >> >> Can you please add these packages: >> - p910nd >> - luci-app-p910nd >> - wifitoggle >> >> Just upgraded from 3.7.5-2, and it looks good so far. >> >> I'm not sure about the SQM Link Layer Adaptation, the wiki says that I s= hould leave it as 'none' for Fiber, but how can I test >> if that is actually the correct setting? > > If you know that you have per packet overhead (more than the pure= ethernet header that is handled with 'none') you should select "ethernet w= ith overhead" and specify the overhead on your line (be sure to add the 14 = bytes for the ethernet header as the kernel unhelpfully forgets to take thi= s into account when you use the link layer adjustment method tc_stab) > For ATM based systems we could use the RTT quantization effects o= f the ATM cells to deduce the overhead empirically but for links with out q= uantization that does not work, so I do not know how check which overhead t= o specify empirically, all you could do is look at the information you have= for your link and potentially ask your ISP for more information. Just reme= mber the goal is to supply precise information about the on-wire size of da= ta packets so SQM can calculate the true bandwidth-cost associated with eac= h packet. BTW if anyone in the audience knows how to measure the overhead f= or ethernet packets, please chime in. > From your information below I would estimate: > As far as I know GPON, basically is a ethernet hub solution (with= one segment shared between several customers) so there is only typical eth= ernet overhead, plus potential framing and vlan tags, so if you select "eth= ernet" as link layer option, you should use the following overhead: > PPP (2B), PPPoE (6B), ethernet (14B, reguired for tc_stab), poten= tially VLAN (4B?), potentially ethernet frame check sequence (???B) > Your ISP should be able to tell you whether he uses VLAN tags on = the bottle neck link (it does not matter whether the VLAN tags are actually= visible/existent on your end of the GPON modem) > So somewhere in the 22 to 30bytes range should work. Alas the onl= y way to figure this out for good is to snoop packets on the fiber segment,= so realistically you need to ask your ISP, or be happy that 22Bytes is as = close to the true overhead as you can get with the information at your hand= . And the closer to the actual wire size SQMs supplied bandwidths are the p= reciser the shaping works. > That said it looks like each of your packets is like 8bytes large= r than the kernel assumes without link layer adjustments or roughly 100*8/6= 4 =3D 12.5 % for the smallest ethernet packets and 100*8/1500 =3D 0.5% for = the largest, assuming you typically use larger packets than 64 bytes, you s= hould not really notice whether the overhead is set correctly or not. On pr= inciple I would recommend to use "ethernet with overhead" but it should not= make much of a difference. Especially since you will need to cut the shape= r some slack anyways, that is even with link layer adjustments latency will= be compromised unless you reduce the bandwidths specified to SQM from the = line rates... > > Best Regards > Sebastian > > > >> >> I have this setup with my ISP: >> cerowrt router <---(Ethernet) ----> (ISP on premise switch for multiple = apartments) <----> (ISP device) <--- (fiber optics) ---> ISP >> >> I connect using PPPoE, and AFAIK the ISP is using GPON. >> Currently I have ~50 Mbps up/down speed, but I could upgrade to 1000 Mbp= s up/down. >> >> Thanks, >> --Edwin >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > _______________________________________________ > 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