From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) (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 7A723208A7C; Fri, 29 May 2015 01:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wizo1 with SMTP id o1so14193111wiz.1; Fri, 29 May 2015 01:34:34 -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=iAiLQCuru8dt8huEWgAKmzMVXugKhYIl00+Fr/yO83k=; b=PasSnZgtE/FqrgCnIpnGp6AR8El0319twP2yDx+lp3FcUt1rfW6+0WkHKdj66Re792 rJcgg5tsvf4hqIKPcJjOPRNMWzl6dXxhFTSCQIQW3JUX80KUeykRPZkml1ul2bpmqoEA SPHasGVfxbpztps5KDlEsCFWf+JpWWJU6RHPSJL6MlEkLsik93Cl3GNVknOz7JDNY3D8 b20/cipNC210bcUZgg4MUUPyx/zUCFttdbQeB09DYkWuAHIPK+DYw/48nMMaCfIWG2ic ApWVj4E1SY79gshw3ZqsIQ+xqCOQibkUJ3FvtKmomhW/x/Oz0NEZsX9F3vVHJwZUUtqf PjtA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.73.10 with SMTP id h10mr2817537wiv.21.1432888474520; Fri, 29 May 2015 01:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.61.138 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 01:34:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:34:34 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pedro Tumusok To: David Lang Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7f1e86d2820517345867 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 08:35:17 -0000 --f46d043c7f1e86d2820517345867 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 --f46d043c7f1e86d2820517345867 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is the 1900AC MU-Mimo? If not then its still normal Airtim= e limitations, unless you consider concurrent 2x2 2.4GHz and 3x3 5GHz as a = MU setup.
Also there are very few =C2=A0devices with builtin 3x3 ac cli= ent. From the top of my head I can not think of one.

Ped= ro

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:55 AM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> w= rote:
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 t= his 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 <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:

All,

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@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>
= https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat




--
Best regards / Mvh
Jan Pedro Tumusok

--f46d043c7f1e86d2820517345867--