From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 65ED221F264 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:22:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f52.google.com with SMTP id a3so2747333oib.11 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:22:43 -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; bh=IpG3U5qz1RHMSXvL+PgMpi087K95kvj3CzE15hV6qtA=; b=0+Niopp2fXhaJMCs0gR1JKE4RpyD6ImpwQQHqLDW/atnTmUXNFfH8TIYQ/yni+go5w jZ+Rtc7sZItbQGhUaNt7MARGQgGawb06TXm5WmwcKQoZVVkdnG1E8cu8VSLeQ7plgJKe RBi3AF0EPuH19WX4dYeV2sakmis81Vqbr6WNy+WofI7Ak/Rig9DdA7BGpsJ415ATNOd7 0e20JBlbtFZu10zPgNslH9vkpQyTQeCm6EDhJpY/LB+eDg0iugKCRIKqSOtvHv1+ueGf 8femJiFvQK3+fnDBN1RxK/W0GWjRqfaUGXD/C02K52AKwIpDHvXyvmteMZXhmK8lmYJr L4Xg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.199.106 with SMTP id jj10mr19195027obc.27.1413746563213; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:22:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.227.211 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.227.211 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:22:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7B5DD5A3-D273-4708-909C-5B5D5DE72282@gmx.de> References: <7B5DD5A3-D273-4708-909C-5B5D5DE72282@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:22:42 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Sebastian Moeller Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1ca2ab3f1690505cb85e1 Cc: Ernesto Elias , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Routing limit question 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, 19 Oct 2014 19:23:12 -0000 --e89a8ff1ca2ab3f1690505cb85e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It looks to me as if the actiontec has pretty good qos all by itself. On Oct 19, 2014 11:56 AM, "Sebastian Moeller" wrote: > HI Dave, > > > On Oct 19, 2014, at 20:24 , Dave Taht 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#Verizo= n-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=3D250989#p250989 > and: > https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=3D251013#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 interne= t > link is way to slow to test this... > > Best Regards > Sebastian > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Ernesto Elias > 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 T=C3=A4ht > > > > 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 > > --e89a8ff1ca2ab3f1690505cb85e1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It looks to me as if the actiontec has pretty good qos all b= y itself.

On Oct 19, 2014 11:56 AM, "Sebastian Moelle= r" <moeller0@gmx.de> wrot= e:
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 ha= d
> SFQ or something similar on egress from the modem.
>
> http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/RRUL_Rogues_Gallery#Verizo= n-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.<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 So on Hnymans community openwrt build a few for= tunate ones on excellent lines seem to get decent results even at 110-120 M= bps combined:
https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=3D250989#p25098= 9
and:
https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=3D251013#p25101= 3
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 b= usts 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 c= an 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 opportun= ity, no?) My own internet link is way to slow to test this...

Best Regards
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 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 veri= zon fios
>> and my speeds are 50 dl/50 ul. Thank you guys very much!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-dev= el@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave T=C3=A4ht
>
> thttp://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Upcom= ing_Talks
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@l= ists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

--e89a8ff1ca2ab3f1690505cb85e1--