From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-x22c.google.com (mail-ob0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22ACB3B2A0 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 14:01:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ob0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id bg3so71473369obb.1 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:01:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bitamins-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=xrHRTsdPbLHk5+fLs35/ZFBjOhaYTXdnCaNbUxXySSY=; b=1PiWuE7OgUSdrHqky5xcIAIddITlU8kVRPqzmQ+1sERML+YJTrpURXODqRsXWv0Wef Vx/t7ebqmVHLXzWL9DbGoD+EIrYAaOUbeRSxOTO5YmhtEZ5XwOWU2h18+riPZwS04J3p Xmz+I+HC7CQ0fVUM3GTbyeXtDBLtN1la04UAbg1b+7rApBuUkDRMaDjP43OsErPzIOo6 wMeXTgLdV9WdxBok1o6qVKBUlXvuh+b3+Zb1ZjoVEtgAeFfpnqhhvwoPrZzx5sU7r078 Nr4mfag6CfZF99IzhSkCscQVRajwnR59oiQpstAhH88vMxTUYIxp1xcG/D/s7Q/nW7rz OsqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=xrHRTsdPbLHk5+fLs35/ZFBjOhaYTXdnCaNbUxXySSY=; b=J0UiAGuWRsoXBkU4IgOIEpvcwOgQorVA3LRZAlS/R0BWbzOA7i4rNN6+fTb4Dhsw5/ FyM8FrUSAKBUQ4t4Q1ZzqlJDN+gdfHUH03DLqk0/bAwkE5w1Rjg9xvoPRj0Ym/FgNp4G TltmeKQ7IMCTVE0Ct53wHxf2EH/3BhUPxP8MpQ8s1uHUr8tpTmA0C21Xl9AjUaj0DNL2 hRTrKDS6HqwWjMN2PVu9M4j2ClGCDV4AbmbygcAQv4GGfu1IuKKmXemHNvZVF4Zq0oDT 1U6HN0gYOvb20MRM2pi3D0jM6eCDmIBm/jFB97IhtrMMAS1jfwP2c0Dv7qwV+5htEnMC QOMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUHgmQInJ1pLEhZosDcWld0wYDHgfDzf+YiVKaauC68g1SBMdZ94sgtblfhr4aeCFzrhXhL5iSeAWnU5Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.94.40 with SMTP id cz8mr13479258oeb.65.1461520904622; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.157.17.7 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:01:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [192.139.156.186] In-Reply-To: References: <20160420055843.GA9772@radio2.ebirdie> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:01:44 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Luis E. Garcia" To: Dave Taht Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118468a5a2e6d05313edad2 Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] trying a pcengines box X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 18:01:45 -0000 --089e0118468a5a2e6d05313edad2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Latency seems very much under control with even a small spike to 2ms, when most of it keeps right under 1ms. How much of a performance hit (% - percentage wise) are you taking on the bandwidth throughput? On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > shaping to 400mbit symmetric works just fine. > --089e0118468a5a2e6d05313edad2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Latency seems very much under control with even a small sp= ike to 2ms, when most of it keeps right under 1ms. How much of a performanc= e hit (% - percentage wise) are you taking on the bandwidth throughput?

On Sun, Apr 24,= 2016 at 9:50 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
shaping to 400mbit symmetric works just fi= ne.

--089e0118468a5a2e6d05313edad2--