From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com (mail-we0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]) (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 5933121F113 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:16:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u57so3243426wes.37 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:16:35 -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=LPK0KEu3DZ52wiB7OhjG6SqofQe5x9WfNR2ikXtR2PE=; b=VqRTvV0yIcoP7lLAtrsfBtxnaYm9h9JPQDpaPO65td7L8pKz7V0vOFlZIFCHfLsd0c 7bkUAGSpkWapaSWtqvCpBDggry1S6CzCVbdW07DIW6iIz3FPgkYwpYDv5epa4evAAuGq y3I8yeJ1LtnTMQWT7MmFfoyvFCBcc0NGuwEKVDInHDyoOXgKlozooKLdc+uIAFHV8Oj2 ASfV6r8dXdZqzOo6ZRInl3JWi1FXsHA+mahjqpzHGByHJ4v7Fj6qc5jsb31iFiEtXCsA FCa2NWpBqj530WSu0UvoJqWzf44WT83dSMUE8V5IXBInP5A6ZR7xb6KPrVPLsMrpiQ5d p6aw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.95.162 with SMTP id dl2mr10499331wib.17.1387602994953; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:16:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.123.69 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:16:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <690EEC3B-8E4D-439E-84ED-375104FF2C43@gmail.com> References: <690EEC3B-8E4D-439E-84ED-375104FF2C43@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:16:34 -0800 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Rich Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Hector Ordorica , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Proper AQM settings for my connection? 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: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 05:16:38 -0000 Netanalyzr is inaccurate. It pushes out a udp stream for not long enough fpr codel to react, thus giving you an over-estimate, and furthermore doesn't detect the presence of flow queuing on the link by sending a secondary flow. This latter problem in netanalyzer is starting to bug me. They've known they don't detect SFQ, SQF, or fq_codel or drr for a long time now, these packet schedulers are deployed at the very least at FT and free.fr and probably quite a few places more, and detecting it is straightforward. Netanalyzr + a ping on the side is all that is needed to see difference between bloat, aqm, and packet scheduling. The rrul test is even better. I would be interested in your pie results on the link... netanalyzer + a ping -c 60 somewhere in both cases... however... there WAS a lot of churn in the AQM code these past few months, so it is possible you have a busted version of the aqm scripts as well. a sample of your tc -s qdisc show dev ge00 would be helpful. As rich says, 3.10.24-5 is pretty good at this point, and a large number of people have installed it, with only a few problems (We have a kernel issue that rose it's ugly head again (instruction traps), and we are discussing improving the web interface further). So upgrade first. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Rich Brown wrote= : > > On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:32 PM, Hector Ordorica wrot= e: > >> I'm running 3.10.13-2 on a WNDR3800, and have used the suggested >> settings from the latest draft: >> >> http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_Cero= Wrt_310 >> >> I have a 30Mb down / 5Mb upload cable connection. >> >> With fq_codel, even undershooting network upload bandwidth by more >> than 95%, I'm seeing 500ms excessive upload buffering warnings from >> netalyzr. Download is ok at 130ms. I was previously on a 3.8 release >> and the same was true. > > I have seen the same thing, although with different CeroWrt firmware. Net= alyzr was reporting >> 500 msec buffering in both directions. > > However, I was simultaneously running a ping to Google during that Netaly= zr run, and the > ping times started at ~55 msec before I started Netalyzr, and occasionall= y they would bump > up to 70 or 80 msec, but never the long times that Netzlyzr reported... > > I also reported this to the Netalyzr mailing list and they didn=92t seem = surprised. I=92m not sure how to interpret this. > >> With pie (and default settings), the buffer warnings go away: >> >> http://n2.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=3D43ca208a-32182-9424fd6= e-5c5f-42d7-a9ea >> >> And the connection performs very well while torrenting and gaming. >> >> Should I try new code? Or can I tweak some variables and/or delay >> options in scripts for codel? > > A couple thoughts: > > - There have been a bunch of changes between 3.10.13-2 and the current ve= rsion (3.10.24-5, which seems pretty stable). You might try upgrading. (See= the =93Rough Notes=94 at the bottom of http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects= /cerowrt/wiki/CeroWrt_310_Release_Notes for the progression of changes). > > - Have you tried a more aggressive decrease to the link speeds on the AQM= page (say, 85% instead of 95%)? > > - Can we get more corroboration from the list about the behavior of Netal= yzer? > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > 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