From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-x22d.google.com (mail-qg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22d]) (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 4A03A21F2BF for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 22:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgdy38 with SMTP id y38so42967893qgd.1 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 22:45:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=d7zXZlT/R3kI6cUqyQJIqqKpUJhKaa8Fz2dL9frR6oI=; b=wL4Uv0T3IZBa8wGpnghmbclq95dKYopoiKrnTptgag7nrDM9FsU5kSioITYyQ69fgO uD7ILWD3Lbnfj1vEY5J+9QktwMX5QK371t+WHTZLtwRt3wMzy6LPTWdMAU9dO9ggclhF VXeEl4o0DDfmkFwiLPsSIBrxzo56UKQpVqe8THMJQKZhRKXbH9TjHItcS3Mg4N+6jxBc WDim1rbZe32fh936cm0igt+n4d4j7gOWUFu5C22SUMRRnMqdVXIvDuFIFD9iJeA+G/FB /kfdMYv6u4NM5KOlJ07agMFXYlRbuAYVVYCarGBteaVp6i11Ssgg2NZ/vc58FcIZLYbj WvsQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.248.199 with SMTP id mh7mr35307371qcb.23.1433310347935; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 22:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.187.71 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 22:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 22:45:47 -0700 Message-ID: From: Aaron Wood To: cerowrt-devel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c71424472805179692a7 Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] ingress rate limiting falling short 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: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 05:46:17 -0000 --001a1134c71424472805179692a7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I wrote this up on my blog, where I can intersperse text and graphs a bit better: http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2015/06/htb-rate-limiting-not-quite-lining-up.html Basically, I ran a series of tcp_download tests, using increasing ingress rates with sqm_scripts, and then used flent's box-plots to put the results into a combined image for comparing. On the 3800, it never meets the rate, but it's only off by maybe 5%. But on my new WRT1900AC, it's wildly off, even over the same performance range (I tested it from 80-220Mbps rates in 20Mbps jumps, and saw from 40-150Mbps. I have no idea where to start looking for the cause. But for now, I'm just setting my ingress rate MUCH higher than I should, because it's working out to the right value as a result. -Aaron --001a1134c71424472805179692a7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I wrote this up on my blog, where I can intersperse t= ext and graphs a bit better:

http:/= /burntchrome.blogspot.com/2015/06/htb-rate-limiting-not-quite-lining-up.htm= l

Basically, I ran a series of tcp_download test= s, using increasing ingress rates with sqm_scripts, and then used flent'= ;s box-plots to put the results into a combined image for comparing.
<= div>
On the 3800, it never meets the rate, but it's only = off by maybe 5%.=C2=A0 But on my new WRT1900AC, it's wildly off, even o= ver the same performance range (I tested it from 80-220Mbps rates in 20Mbps= jumps, and saw from 40-150Mbps.

I have no idea wh= ere to start looking for the cause.=C2=A0 But for now, I'm just setting= my ingress rate MUCH higher than I should, because it's working out to= the right value as a result.

-Aaron
--001a1134c71424472805179692a7--