Do you have the latest (head) version of netperf and netperf-wrapper?  some
changes were made to both that give better UDP results.

-Aaron


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> CeroWrt 3.10.28-14 is doing a good job of keeping latency low. But... it
> has two other effects:
>
> - I don't get the full "7 mbps down, 768 kbps up" as touted by my DSL
> provider (Fairpoint). In fact, CeroWrt struggles to get above 6.0/0.6 mbps.
>
> - When I adjust the SQM parameters to get close to those numbers, I get
> increasing levels of packet loss (5-8%) during a concurrent ping test.
>
> So my question to the group is whether this behavior makes sense: that we
> can have low latency while losing ~10% of the link capacity, or that
> getting close to the link capacity should induce large packet loss...
>
> Experimental setup:
>
> I'm using a Comtrend 583-U DSL modem, that has a sync rate of 7616 kbps
> down, 864 kbps up. Theoretically, I should be able to tell SQM to use
> numbers a bit lower than those values, with an ATM plus header overhead
> with default settings.
>
> I have posted the results of my netperf-wrapper trials at
> http://richb-hanover.com - There are a number of RRUL charts, taken with
> different link rates configured, and with different link layers.
>
> I welcome people's thoughts for other tests/adjustments/etc.
>
> Rich Brown
> Hanover, NH USA
>
> PS I did try the 3.10.28-16, but ran into troubles with wifi and ethernet
> connectivity. I must have screwed up my local configuration - I was doing
> it quickly - so I rolled back to 3.10.28.14.
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>