From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com (mail-we0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) (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 1671B21F1F1 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id t60so5804090wes.5 for ; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:44:03 -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 :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vzM+rVyUq79fd8GIk0OHjzJH3GEjzHv2oIjaFzS9xz0=; b=mH3FIleMl7sWz4sLn85JsgXRymZK/BOeGBolsx1G2EzFye6TADsiV28Hi5xtG/q698 gzui6c9LiQTDn0BFlwPpJkJyQ71M56Y+0RlbcC+++EqwaX7+GZ69jP+f34P4iOvfjqxs waSk7Ogytw+Yaxzq3N+hn91qIOa8PeFjs6bUU1DQ/iU0n3TNzRlAudQ0WTvr1U8VdSLD PLlsQwilGkmk80TQzeaekJEwCW6UQmYkBbzMdZOf+xKHVfKjp+2fTPxloM29qNltlhac P4jXsMEDsuzBn0cHLatnINdnx51sm4wh0mDKreiKcNTO0ovjlKcCE8958i2nhy1JHutZ hopQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.6.106 with SMTP id z10mr37406897wjz.1.1396820643578; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.177.10 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:44:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140406044821.GO9694@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> References: <20140406000236.GM9694@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> <20140406000858.GN9694@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> <20140406044821.GO9694@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 14:44:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build 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: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 21:44:06 -0000 While mtr is at best an unreliable measurement, your data certainly points to problems on the ipv6 portion of the path leading to your reduced ipv6 throughput figures. You might want to find another he gateway closer to you to use, or one better connected. he has pretty good forums if you'd like to engage them there... On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 05:57:44PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: >> > And IPv6 over the HE tunnel: >> > >> > root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh -H netperf6.richb-hanover.com >> > Testing against netperf6.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (= 60 seconds in each direction) >> > ......................................................................= ...... >> > Download: 21.56 Mbps >> > Latency: (in msec, 77 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >> > Min: 14.477 >> > 10pct: 15.469 >> > Median: 17.646 >> > Avg: 18.906 >> > 90pct: 23.540 >> > Max: 36.302 >> > ......................................................................= ...... >> > Upload: 5.85 Mbps >> > Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >> > Min: 14.589 >> > 10pct: 15.579 >> > Median: 18.156 >> > Avg: 18.323 >> > 90pct: 21.192 >> > Max: 25.282 >> >> That's pretty lame compared to your ipv4 results, but the length of >> the path looks the same... puzzling... How much further (or less far) >> is rich's box (traceroute6 -n netperf6.richb-hanover.com) on ipv6 vs >> ipv4 (traceroute -n ) > > Without any testing going on: > > My traceroute [v0.82] > a (::) Sun Apr 6 00:35:5= 5 2014 > Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit > Packets Pings > Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst= StDev > 1. 2001:470:89c6:3::1 0.0% 25 1.7 1.7 1.4 3.4= 0.4 > 2. canderson-2.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.i 0.0% 25 25.3 22.5 20.6 27.6= 1.5 > 3. ge3-8.core1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 25 17.2 21.1 16.0 37.6= 5.3 > 4. 100ge5-1.core1.ash1.he.net 0.0% 25 25.2 25.7 21.4 34.9= 3.7 > 5. xe-0.equinix.asbnva01.us.bb.gin. 33.3% 25 32.7 25.1 22.2 32.7= 2.7 > 6. ae-6.r20.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt. 0.0% 25 24.0 27.3 22.5 41.3= 5.0 > 7. ae-3.r04.atlnga05.us.bb.gin.ntt. 0.0% 25 43.9 40.4 36.7 53.3= 4.5 > 8. xe-0-1-0-17.r04.atlnga05.us.ce.g 0.0% 25 47.8 41.5 35.7 50.3= 4.5 > 9. ??? > 10. 2604:180::65be:a189 0.0% 24 37.7 37.9 35.8 40.1= 1.3 > > > My traceroute [v0.82] > a (0.0.0.0) Sun Apr 6 00:37:1= 2 2014 > Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit > Packets Pings > Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst= StDev > 1. 172.30.42.65 0.0% 26 1.5 1.6 1.3 5.7= 0.8 > 2. ??? > 3. te-0-0-0-11-sur02.woburn.ma.bost 0.0% 25 25.1 11.0 8.8 25.1= 3.4 > 4. be-62-ar01.needham.ma.boston.com 0.0% 25 87.9 65.4 10.4 684.5= 168.8 > 5. he-2-7-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone 0.0% 25 15.7 19.9 15.7 27.6= 2.9 > 6. ??? > 7. ae3.nyc32.ip4.tinet.net 0.0% 25 28.6 23.2 16.0 49.7= 9.1 > 8. xe-4-3-0.atl11.ip4.tinet.net 0.0% 25 50.3 49.3 46.4 66.2= 4.7 > 9. ramnode-gw.ip4.tinet.net 0.0% 25 47.0 50.9 46.8 58.7= 3.8 > 10. ??? > 11. 23.226.232.80 0.0% 25 47.8 48.6 46.8 57.2= 2.2 > > >> >> I have certainly seen bottlenecks, excessive delay, and packet loss on >> he's gateways. >> >> An "mtr" might be revealing during the test for spotting packet loss >> further on the path. > > SQM is now set to 60000/10000. > > During the IPv6 test: > > My traceroute [v0.82] > a (::) Sun Apr 6 00:41:1= 2 2014 > Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit > Packets Pings > Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst= StDev > 1. 2001:470:89c6:3::1 0.0% 138 2.7 1.8 1.2 17.7= 1.4 > 2. canderson-2.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.i 0.0% 138 22.9 25.2 20.0 62.9= 5.2 > 3. ge3-8.core1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 137 22.5 25.0 16.2 143.6= 11.9 > 4. 100ge5-1.core1.ash1.he.net 0.0% 137 22.6 29.0 21.2 72.7= 7.1 > 5. xe-0.equinix.asbnva01.us.bb.gin. 40.1% 137 25.7 31.1 22.4 147.9= 16.6 > 6. ae-6.r20.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt. 0.0% 137 22.9 29.5 22.1 72.0= 8.2 > 7. ae-3.r04.atlnga05.us.bb.gin.ntt. 11.7% 137 37.1 41.4 36.2 74.5= 5.4 > 8. xe-0-1-0-17.r04.atlnga05.us.ce.g 0.0% 137 39.9 43.6 35.8 79.9= 6.8 > 9. ??? > 10. 2604:180::65be:a189 0.0% 137 36.6 41.1 36.0 59.8= 4.5 > > > root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh -H netperf6.richb-hanover.com > Testing against netperf6.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 = seconds in each direction) > .........................................................................= . > Download: 27.2 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 14.666 > 10pct: 15.606 > Median: 18.254 > Avg: 21.101 > 90pct: 29.038 > Max: 55.143 > .........................................................................= .. > Upload: 6.57 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 14.753 > 10pct: 15.233 > Median: 17.599 > Avg: 17.591 > 90pct: 19.674 > Max: 24.718 > > IPv4 test: > > root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh > Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 s= econds in each direction) > ............................................................ > Download: 46.11 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 16.011 > 10pct: 16.463 > Median: 19.134 > Avg: 19.743 > 90pct: 22.525 > Max: 28.650 > ............................................................ > . Upload: 8.97 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 16.214 > 10pct: 16.904 > Median: 19.154 > Avg: 19.151 > 90pct: 20.989 > Max: 22.683 > >> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:02:37PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: >> >> Here are some betterspeedtest.sh results for 3.10.36-1: >> >> >> >> First, without SQM enabled: >> >> >> >> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh >> >> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (= 60 seconds in each direction) >> >> ............................................................ >> >> Download: 52.39 Mbps >> >> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >> >> Min: 15.281 >> >> 10pct: 18.302 >> >> Median: 28.502 >> >> Avg: 32.891 >> >> 90pct: 56.776 >> >> Max: 74.282 >> >> ............................................................. >> >> Upload: 11.07 Mbps >> >> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >> >> Min: 15.341 >> >> 10pct: 18.669 >> >> Median: 82.480 >> >> Avg: 126.662 >> >> 90pct: 248.102 >> >> Max: 278.644 >> >> >> >> And now, with SQM set to 80% up/down numbers from above: >> >> >> >> root@cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh >> >> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (= 60 seconds in each direction) >> >> ............................................................ >> >> Download: 32.84 Mbps >> >> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >> >> Min: 15.623 >> >> 10pct: 16.077 >> >> Median: 17.634 >> >> Avg: 17.982 >> >> 90pct: 19.653 >> >> Max: 23.272 >> >> ............................................................. >> >> Upload: 8.25 Mbps >> >> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss) >> >> Min: 16.001 >> >> 10pct: 17.623 >> >> Median: 19.796 >> >> Avg: 19.820 >> >> 90pct: 21.716 >> >> Max: 23.228 >> >> root@cerowrt:~# >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> > + openwrt merge >> >> > ++ fix for dhcpv6 renew problem >> >> > + actually tested for an hour so far on 5.4ghz, with a us countryco= de >> >> > and wpa+psk enabled... >> >> > >> >> > Get it at: >> >> > >> >> > http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-1/ >> >> > >> >> > but: there isn't much other reason to upgrade to this... >> >> > >> >> > - no progress on the wifi bug - but I am beating up wifi with a var= iety of >> >> > devices and scripts today hoping to make it fail, and bringing up a >> >> > bunch more tomorrow. >> >> > >> >> > - toke's script relies on stratum '16' changing, and it doesn't wit= h openwrt's >> >> > ntp, it seems.... > _______________________________________________ > 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