From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (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 706D521F26C for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oigb199 with SMTP id b199so7656840oig.3 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:09:26 -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=7LdVGZ5STcGC2yD9UsIW3eQph40RcWPxlAZN7Pykl94=; b=YIuAOplAXHpoRpx4BG5eA/RiuH9ir6c51VR9HRxli7rhjADfOrnsPmNgT2crNRx8Io /8Deuur9yDRbOY/BuRQBaN+BVB0ysT689xI7VXWYsqHdSoGrkYGVtudGtGZw0I+6Vl3Q IigP4yjSWY8b6zcNpxOx4F5/1wAfQYMK7JdCwTNH801TaKKkse49kFt418vNMiBPeXCu 4PkaWQ+dqNGdYO7Fd56x+jujUnUkUPdahRBsHH62RTNhZvu+5UChARepiqu23alyDrxF s3eHqBu/k19uaT4UvkzGQqU1sfEQOT8bXKb4S4KCUM2M2kVedMFNFtb8BgTEOA4fnecA xVdA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.92.68 with SMTP id q65mr16657678oib.11.1435068566197; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.105.129 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:09:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <26463A88-821B-44B7-A728-64BCB0B7C7BB@gmx.de> <55847E32.9000405@gmail.com> <5584823E.4040207@gmail.com> <0129B5FB-9D1B-45FF-84CA-492A6A0B638B@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:09:26 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Mikael Abrahamsson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't) 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, 23 Jun 2015 14:09:55 -0000 On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrot= e: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Most likely not. Check http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/sqm . >> Rich published a great set of instructions for setting up sqm-scripts un= der >> openwrt proper. > > > I tried it on Linksys WRT1200AC with OpenWrt CC RC2. I configured sqm to > have 800 megabit/s each direction, and ran iperf3 over IPv4 with NAT44 fr= om > Linux box behind WRT1200AC to an OSX macbook connected on a switch on the > same L2 subnet as the WAN port. > > Linux <->WRT1200AC<->switch<->OSX > > I get 765 megabit/s of throughput using single session, at sirq load of > around 25%. If I lower the mss to 300 (to generate higher pps) I get arou= nd > 560 megabit/s of throughput at 50% sirq. With 10 parallel TCP sessions, I > get about the same. At MSS of 200 bytes, I get 400 megabit/s at 70% sirq. > > If I turn off SQM completely, I get 600 megabit/s at 200 byte MSS single > session at 80% sirq and 930 megabit/s at 26% sirq with default MSS. Yer missing the more important figure. What is the induced latency in all these cases? With the system being software limited, I would imagine that other oddities arise. Running out of cpu, additional oddities. When going at hardware line rate, is fq_codel enabled? Does it ever engage? (My limited testing showed that lacking BQL, delay accrued big time in the drivers themselves on this platform) Good idea on using a reduced MSS size! I would really like to get to the point where cake ran on this platform, but thus far we have not managed to get a working build, nor push cake into mainline openwrt.... my observation is that a lot of the overhead of sqm comes from tc filters, iptables rules and NAT. > So if you want high performing device that is OpenWRT compatible and stil= l > does forwarding using CPU so you can test queuing algorithms, the WRT1200= AC > and WRT1900ACv2 is the best I have been able to find currently (unless yo= u > go for x86 platform). yes, x86 is fastest. I have not tried the reduced mss idea on my rangeley box, I will check that out! > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht worldwide bufferbloat report: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat And: What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast