From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::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 599D321F846 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oiyy130 with SMTP id y130so82176254oiy.0 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:13:20 -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=c+v5K0fRXBtQoaNH2vffF05ABZGvp4K9vjYlamDL71U=; b=gXXooZZwH2WP0zyVAKA8lxoN6GxCaX+4iD0BUyDa1b2E047Z3LzGlEwwnTimqflAE0 zpcZt2MdEnaHbDtt0rWoa+bsx00ZwBigjQZtruc5O86XDncMmseU/VnBIXvWRanBsiJE R3brRITvUHTJAtef/q9/NTwfZkUK/JQVVkr4fybvQShSqt+3zyCTq0pOo8M1INBRB7bp PgRCZ/cBCrfvR0z2YkdPbDmUtgzwBGZNJ6omGNYWQftHQauE6O4AClQE1FOmAsSos7U4 2hRJs3r/lS5oLqJBJTkqBHLRdExO8IT3cmrx9A7O0pizn8FuuReX0i32KCFhrZawk2kx hbBQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.240.135 with SMTP id wa7mr401835obc.63.1435346000168; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.105.129 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:13:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0129B5FB-9D1B-45FF-84CA-492A6A0B638B@gmx.de> <43D5C3CE-F1F4-4BA5-AEB9-55348661C7BA@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:13:20 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Mikael Abrahamsson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" 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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:13:49 -0000 On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wro= te: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mikael, a simple test of the analysis I just did would be to use >>>>> ethtool to set your server to 100mbits (ethtool -s >>>>> your_ethernet_device advertise 0x008 and turn on fq_codel on both the >>>>> client and server. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hm what do you mean by "client" and "server"? >> >> >> your topology is: >> >> client box - router - server >> >> forcing the router - server link to 100mbit will push the egress >> buffering into the router for the rrul_50_up test in particular. > > > No, my topology is , that is what made= me > confused. > So if I forced the eth0 router-switch link into 100M I will break the > server->client direction (it'll be shallow buffer fifo) but at least > client->server direction will exercise fq_codel on the router. well, maybe the driver will take ethtool on the mvneta. try it. :) > > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se --=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