From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-x22f.google.com (mail-ig0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22f]) (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 B9FB221F1C1 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f175.google.com with SMTP id hl1so4877338igb.2 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:57:00 -0800 (PST) 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=clDA9dNFbQf7RBMAhtL0JonJAEtvwqg0bRmwm5Pez60=; b=fD1GXi3IQxSnUOmZmmPhh5FX2lvJIz835+DaT45x0uFd8qHhGSySaolQG4OtNYjHtP E+m91fHcnh7IbsQEjlGYEaCHh6JUkdZHlCMAYtzSc6z9aCPGG7+Kdms9usMNjqB2Qyza dONxMWNByIWaHaL2qsT18G07RE50QBK90SUEdmfohRpkcOtMGNMz4ZHLt/4DCblAiBi8 qAaXUi9LG2x9Pt1uFh4ZFNCrWHLxtz/vGXxG4OilgjALwUwkqRW+VcK7yeI8fTHxi6JQ Gzzt2eYR8duvHeMBPPTI2B6mWlkCFy7dLMSo+OUCtVLC7MvDPXNdyeJldqxtc3nfaowq 8FUg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.81.7 with SMTP id x7mr633063ick.84.1393253819662; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:56:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.238.70 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:56:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4E5BC321-2054-4364-BECC-DF34E0D20380@gmail.com> References: <4E5BC321-2054-4364-BECC-DF34E0D20380@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:56:59 +0100 Message-ID: From: Aaron Wood To: Rich Brown Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303347c100c8cd04f3282f4d Cc: cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Equivocal results with using 3.10.28-14 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: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:57:01 -0000 --20cf303347c100c8cd04f3282f4d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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 > --20cf303347c100c8cd04f3282f4d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Do you have the latest (head) version of netperf and netpe= rf-wrapper? =A0some 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.c= om> wrote:

CeroWrt 3.10.28-14 is do= ing 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 b= y 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 inc= reasing 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 c= an 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 numb= ers a bit lower than those values, with an ATM plus header overhead with de= fault 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, an= d 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<= /a>, 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 b= ack to 3.10.28.14.
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.= bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

--20cf303347c100c8cd04f3282f4d--