From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) (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 B7E712006A1; Fri, 29 May 2015 03:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicmc15 with SMTP id mc15so11541335wic.1; Fri, 29 May 2015 03:04:21 -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=zujexxieKeUosn5P2jmm53oNdKFu2d14Go3CH6FeRXw=; b=yTvzdKJ1Ri5CpObA/nVHDRHUpnjjZZxcNldPadD38DAcCR/NODrDz8HqcsrCLSBPbc M+5ITaNzC5G8cbxsgXu4zo8rj3dS2yIvXLdTKmCsGb3ILbV+TrUXwMAE2exqchOXlDcO bo2A8HJZteOmc/S/fA5BmjF6WVSVY3Ohy4NQqBvDB8gXGrLGEFjD+DORzc0TX0gHQv+2 sOMlcvtWaBPmLpflHWcvxMJMUDKLhw1Yx5BzdaLLFKFbW24H7+zhVs+0ev2K95dmwt3Q WxZGzxy5KsxuxNUMxQW5FE8+sAVXvY2OvhL0aD8iwZOMJAaH9nlB+IO10/vlWAZi52V8 wpBA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.98.103 with SMTP id eh7mr3643175wib.75.1432893861002; Fri, 29 May 2015 03:04:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.61.138 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 03:04:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 12:04:20 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pedro Tumusok To: David Lang Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec55550269602220517359977 Cc: cerowrt-devel , bloat Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Bloat] sqm-scripts on WRT1900AC 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, 29 May 2015 10:05:10 -0000 --bcaec55550269602220517359977 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >From my understanding you need an AP that supports mu-mimo and then you have different scenarios of of how to support clients. If the client supports mu-mimo then you get the "full" mi-mimo experience. If the client does not support it, you do not get the "full" mu-mimo experience for that or those clients. Example if you got an 8x8 mu-mimo ap, then you can for instance use 4 of those 8 for a mu-mimo setup and the last 4 can be used for 4 groups of single stream connections or one 3x3 and 1x1. And probably many more combinations like that. But I might be way off on this, do not have any wave 2 products to play with yet. Pedro On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:09 AM, David Lang wrote: > Ok, I think I'm understanding that unless the client is mimo enabled, mimo > on the the AP doesn't do any good. I'm focused on the high density > conference type setup and was wondering if going to these models would > result in any mor effective airtime. It sounds like the answer is no. > > David Lang > > > On Fri, 29 May 2015, Pedro Tumusok wrote: > > Is the 1900AC MU-Mimo? If not then its still normal Airtime limitations, >> unless you consider concurrent 2x2 2.4GHz and 3x3 5GHz as a MU setup. >> Also there are very few devices with builtin 3x3 ac client. From the top >> of my head I can not think of one. >> >> Pedro >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:55 AM, David Lang wrote: >> >> looking at the 1900ac vs the 1200ac, one question. what is needed to >>> benefit from the 3x3 vs the 2x2? >>> >>> In theory the 3x3 can transmit to three clients at the same time while >>> the >>> 2x2 can transmit to two clients at the same time. >>> >>> But does the client need specific support for this? (mimo or -ac) Or will >>> this work for 802.11n clients as well? >>> >>> David Lang >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 23 May 2015, Aaron Wood wrote: >>> >>> Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 23:19:19 -0700 >>> >>>> From: Aaron Wood >>>> To: bloat , >>>> cerowrt-devel , >>>> Dave Taht >>>> Subject: Re: [Bloat] sqm-scripts on WRT1900AC >>>> >>>> >>>> After more tweaking, and after Comcast's network settled down some, I >>>> have >>>> some rather quite nice results: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2015/05/sqm-scripts-on-linksys-wrt1900ac-part-1.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So it looks like the WRT1900AC is a definite contender for our faster >>>> cable >>>> services. I'm not sure if it will hold out to the 300Mbps that you >>>> want, >>>> Dave, but it's got plenty for what Comcast is selling right now. >>>> >>>> -Aaron >>>> >>>> P.S. Broken wifi to the MacBook was a MacBook issue, not a router issue >>>> (sorted itself out after I put the laptop into monitor mode to capture >>>> packets). >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Aaron Wood wrote: >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've been lurking on the OpenWRT forum, looking to see when the CC >>>>> builds >>>>> for the WRT1900AC stabilized, and they seem to be so (for a very >>>>> "beta"-ish >>>>> version of stable). >>>>> >>>>> So I went ahead and loaded up the daily ( CHAOS CALMER (Bleeding Edge, >>>>> r45715)). >>>>> >>>>> After getting Luci and sqm-scripts installed, I did a few baseline >>>>> tests. >>>>> Wifi to the MacBook Pro is... broken. 30Mbps vs. 90+ on the stock >>>>> firmware. iPhone is fine (80-90Mbps download speed from the internet). >>>>> >>>>> After some rrul runs, this is what I ended up with: >>>>> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/538967 >>>>> >>>>> sqm-scripts are set for: >>>>> 100Mbps download >>>>> 10Mbps upload >>>>> fq_codel >>>>> ECN >>>>> no-squash >>>>> don't ignore >>>>> >>>>> Here's a before run, with the stock firmware: >>>>> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/337392 >>>>> >>>>> So, unfortunately, it's still leaving 50Mbps on the table. >>>>> >>>>> However, if I set the ingress limit higher (130Mbps), buffering is >>>>> still >>>>> controlled. Not as well, though. from +5ms to +10ms, with lots of >>>>> jitter. But it still looks great to the dslreports test: >>>>> http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/538990 >>>>> >>>>> But the upside? load is practically nil. The WRT1900AC, with it's >>>>> dual-core processor is more than enough to keep up with this (from a >>>>> load >>>>> point of view), but it seems like the bottleneck isn't the raw CPU >>>>> power >>>>> (cache?). >>>>> >>>>> I'll get a writeup with graphs on the blog tomorrow (I hope). >>>>> >>>>> -Aaron >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bloat mailing list >>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bloat mailing list >>> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- Best regards / Mvh Jan Pedro Tumusok --bcaec55550269602220517359977 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From my understanding you need an AP that supports mu= -mimo and then you have different scenarios of of how to support clients. I= f the client supports mu-mimo then you get the "full" mi-mimo exp= erience. If the client does not support it, you do not get the "full&q= uot; mu-mimo experience for that or those clients.

Example if you got an 8x8 mu-mimo ap, then you can for instance use 4 of t= hose 8 for a mu-mimo setup and the last 4 can be used for 4 groups of singl= e stream connections or one 3x3 and 1x1. And probably many more combination= s like that.
But I might be way off on this, do not have any wave= 2 products to play with yet.

Pedro
=C2= =A0

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:09 AM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> w= rote:
Ok, I think I'm understanding t= hat unless the client is mimo enabled, mimo on the the AP doesn't do an= y good. I'm focused on the high density conference type setup and was w= ondering if going to these models would result in any mor effective airtime= . It sounds like the answer is no.

David Lang


On Fri, 29 May 2015, Pedro Tumusok wrote:

Is the 1900AC MU-Mimo? If not then its still normal Airtime limitations, unless you consider concurrent 2x2 2.4GHz and 3x3 5GHz as a MU setup.
Also there are very few=C2=A0 devices with builtin 3x3 ac client. From the = top
of my head I can not think of one.

Pedro

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:55 AM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:

looking at the 1900ac vs the 1200ac, one question. what is needed to
benefit from the 3x3 vs the 2x2?

In theory the 3x3 can transmit to three clients at the same time while the<= br> 2x2 can transmit to two clients at the same time.

But does the client need specific support for this? (mimo or -ac) Or will this work for 802.11n clients as well?

David Lang


On Sat, 23 May 2015, Aaron Wood wrote:

=C2=A0Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 23:19:19 -0700
From: Aaron Wood <woody77@gmail.com>
To: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 cerowrt-devel <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>,<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bloat] sqm-scripts on WRT1900AC


After more tweaking, and after Comcast's network settled down some, I h= ave
some rather quite nice results:


http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/201= 5/05/sqm-scripts-on-linksys-wrt1900ac-part-1.html



So it looks like the WRT1900AC is a definite contender for our faster
cable
services.=C2=A0 I'm not sure if it will hold out to the 300Mbps that yo= u want,
Dave, but it's got plenty for what Comcast is selling right now.

-Aaron

P.S.=C2=A0 Broken wifi to the MacBook was a MacBook issue, not a router iss= ue
(sorted itself out after I put the laptop into monitor mode to capture
packets).

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Aaron Wood <woody77@gmail.com> wrote:

=C2=A0All,

I've been lurking on the OpenWRT forum, looking to see when the CC buil= ds
for the WRT1900AC stabilized, and they seem to be so (for a very
"beta"-ish
version of stable).

So I went ahead and loaded up the daily ( CHAOS CALMER (Bleeding Edge,
r45715)).

After getting Luci and sqm-scripts installed, I did a few baseline tests. Wifi to the MacBook Pro is...=C2=A0 broken.=C2=A0 30Mbps vs. 90+ on the sto= ck
firmware.=C2=A0 iPhone is fine (80-90Mbps download speed from the internet)= .

After some rrul runs, this is what I ended up with:
ht= tp://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/538967

sqm-scripts are set for:
100Mbps download
10Mbps upload
fq_codel
ECN
no-squash
don't ignore

Here's a before run, with the stock firmware:
ht= tp://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/337392

So, unfortunately, it's still leaving 50Mbps on the table.

However, if I set the ingress limit higher (130Mbps), buffering is still controlled.=C2=A0 Not as well, though.=C2=A0 from +5ms to +10ms, with lots = of
jitter.=C2=A0 But it still looks great to the dslreports test:
ht= tp://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/538990

But the upside?=C2=A0 load is practically nil.=C2=A0 The WRT1900AC, with it= 's
dual-core processor is more than enough to keep up with this (from a load point of view), but it seems like the bottleneck isn't the raw CPU powe= r
(cache?).

I'll get a writeup with graphs on the blog tomorrow (I hope).

-Aaron


_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@list= s.bufferbloat.net
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@list= s.bufferbloat.net
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat








--
=
Best regards / Mvh
Jan Pedro Tumusok
<= br>
--bcaec55550269602220517359977--