From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yk0-x232.google.com (mail-yk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::232]) (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 7ECEE21F30B for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 01:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykfc206 with SMTP id c206so84928384ykf.1 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 01:13:43 -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=vTEj8yPHJXoySE1f3McnbD1oY2uzcrQq58flvpG0ceQ=; b=HTGrKfiN0cfV01EisaiU0bkaZXpAaLoX6vnBwAt4bdsB0Kl4RygJqkPTl8drlgR8cw DDDBdqievoKcMJVokFxKTs5qrsGa67yImQDxiZJk+2I0RZ7IjKMdqUHMmwLRFBrc8mj0 Z2PMRhOJiLb2dQXOJTmkK1Kve9Cnx59WgYJ10dMN5b/9UPZXifDgiEhsgOAykJ+bMozj 1TUHW5X/9k5WM05m0Et26UZ+eMmGCGFtw8wIhUqgJ20OcDf02jS1VsXBSARWe8ajN0+u Vu8S5f1PgqWZBMLR6ADcEbDLGIr/uhVMH9ek9e+hFUEtgfCaB111sX8U2LwDzOUy2cck GJKg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.160.69 with SMTP id xi5mr2479043vdb.58.1427184823727; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 01:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.240.145 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 01:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.240.145 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 01:13:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <08BAF198-87C5-42B8-8899-53F34E47156E@gmail.com> <896FAE61-B45A-4F34-9449-5ADB82194DD9@gmx.de> <48350C2E-C33A-4534-84BC-5D56F4AAF0EA@gmail.com> <8AC58249-8199-405B-997A-E8F7285A34FB@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:13:43 +0200 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Morton To: Sebastian Moeller Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160c514727f930512045c18 Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] archer c7 v2, policing, hostapd, test openwrt build 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, 24 Mar 2015 08:14:13 -0000 --089e0160c514727f930512045c18 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 What I'm seeing on your first tests is that double egress gives you slightly more download at the expense of slightly less upload throughout. The aggregate is higher. Your second set of tests tells me almost nothing, because it exercises the upload more and the download less. Hence why I'm asking for effectively the opposite test. The aggregate is still significantly higher with double egress, though. The ping numbers also tell me that there's no significant latency penalty either way. Even when CPU saturated, it's still effectively controlling the latency better than leaving the pipe open. - Jonathan Morton --089e0160c514727f930512045c18 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What I'm seeing on your first tests is that double egres= s gives you slightly more download at the expense of slightly less upload t= hroughout. The aggregate is higher.

Your second set of tests tells me almost nothing, because it= exercises the upload more and the download less. Hence why I'm asking = for effectively the opposite test. The aggregate is still significantly hig= her with double egress, though.

The ping numbers also tell me that there's no significan= t latency penalty either way. Even when CPU saturated, it's still effec= tively controlling the latency better than leaving the pipe open.

- Jonathan Morton

--089e0160c514727f930512045c18--