I was going to test the recommended bridge settings for overhead (32 IIRC), because as far as I can tell there is no PPPoE involved. I've never seen it in the modems config (in the brief period it has an IP before I put it in bridge mode as well so the routable IP goes to my actual router), or needed to configure it on my router. I am seeing my effective bandwidth be higher by about 50/KBs on downloads. On Netflix, my Roku used to try HD upon starting playback then (after 20-30 seconds thinking about it) fail back to SD, but now the HD streams are working flawlessly for hours. -- David P. On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Hi David, > > > On Jan 7, 2014, at 12:08 , David Personette wrote: > > > I'm in the US, but live in a relatively rural area. My only internet > options are DSL and satellite. The local provider is Century Link (it used > to be Sprint, but they sold their copper phone business off). I have the > fastest service that they offer (based on distance from the DSLAM), 4 down > / .5 up. > > And you are not alone, a considerable percentage of the population > wherever you look is hanging on such connections. So cerowrt should really > help those folk as well as luckier ones. > > > > > I have had SmokePing monitoring my latency to the first hop outside my > network for over a year now (I've been on CeroWRT the whole time). My > baseline (no load) latency is 31ms. I used to have AQM throttling back to > 80% of my already pathetic bandwidth. I would still regularly see periods > lasting minutes to hours when latency would be 80 - 120ms. > > > > I only recently grokked what you were talking about with tc_stab since I > got back from the holidays with the family, I set things up as you > suggested for Fred (nfq_codel, "target 25ms" in advanced egress, ATM, per > packet overhead 40, > > The exact number depends on the encapsulation your ISP uses, 40 is > right for a typical PPPoE over LLC/SNAP connection, if that is correct for > your link you are fine, otherwise contact me if you want to empirically > find out the proper value for your link. > > > and set my SQM bandwidth limits to 95%). Since the 30th my "worst case" > latency has been 41ms. > > the fq_codels really are great if in control of the bottleneck, > really good work by bright people! > > > Plus I get to use more of my actual bandwidth. > > Well, that I am not so sure. By enabling link layer ATM the router > will automatically take care of the ATM cell overhead for you (basically > reducing the effective rate to ~90% of the link, in other words you get the > same effect by shaping to 90%). It will also handle the per packet overhead > and the nasty potential padding of the last ATM cell (both have a stronger > effect on small packets and are hard to actually account for by static rate > reduction; link layer ATM comes again to the rescue by taking these two > into account individually for each packet based on the packet size). So > effectively 95% with link layer adjustments might mean a lower wire rate > than 80% without; the important thing is that with the link layer > adjustments the link capacity is estimated correctly avoiding the modem's > and the DSLAM's buffers to fill and cause buffer bloat. > > > I REALLY wish that I'd made the time to read your emails about setting > up the ATM overhead earlier. > > Oh, I can understand, when I learned about this some years ago (by > stumbling over Russel Stuart's website and Jesper Brouer's thesis) it > immediate changed my internet experience (I was on a 3 down / 0.5 up > connection at that time). :) > > Best Regards > Sebastian > > > > > Thank you. > > > > -- > > David P. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Sebastian Moeller > wrote: > > Hi Fred, > > > > > > On Jan 6, 2014, at 15:22 , Fred Stratton wrote: > > > > > The line rate is 11744/1022 kb/s, but changes moment to moment. SNR is > 12.1 decibel. I am using 11000/950 kb/s as settings. > > > > So 100 * 11000 / 11744 = 93.66% of downlink line rate and 100* > 950 / 1022 = 92.95 % of uplink line rate; quite impressive given the common > wisdom of 85% :). > > > > > > > I shall try your suggestion when there is something worth watching > live, to provide a valid comparison, which may not be before 21:30 CET on > Sunday. > > > > Oh, take your time, this is really not essential, butit would be > a nice data point for figuring out how important the correct overhead > estimate really is in real life, theory being theory and all… > > > > Best Regards > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > On 06/01/14 14:12, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > > >> Hi Fred, > > >> > > >> > > >> On Jan 6, 2014, at 10:52 , Fred Stratton > wrote: > > >> > > >>> I have been operating the latest build with 6relayd disabled. The > henet /48 I have been allocated is subnetted correctly, presumably by > dnsmasq. > > >>> > > >>> I adopted the suggestions to use nfq_codel and an egress target of > 25ms , with an overhead of 40 on a PPPoE connection. I chose to watch the > first 2 episodes of the 3 part third series of 'Sherlock', live on iPlayer, > and these streamed correctly and uninterrupted for 90 minutes. This was > not previously possible. (Quite whether they were up to the standard of > previous episodes is another matter.) > > >>> > > >>> I can watch iPlayer with little stutter whilst downloading Arch > Linux by torrent, downloading other files at the same time. > > >>> > > >>> So, for a relatively slow ADSL2+ line, the current build works well. > > >> Out of curiosity, to what percentage of the "current line rate" > (you know the one reported by your modem) you shaped up- and downlink? And > in case you have too much time on your hand, how does the same feel with an > overhead of 10 (to see how bad an overhead underestimate would feel for a > user), since you currently happen to have a quite sensitive subjective > latency evaluation system set up :)… > > >> > > >> Best Regards > > >> Sebastian > > >> > > >>> > > >>> On 06/01/14 03:29, Dave Taht wrote: > > >>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Fred Stratton > wrote: > > >>>>> Link Names: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> For consistency, if ADSL is used as a portmanteau term, them VDSL > should be > > >>>>> used as the equivalent for VDSL and VDSL2. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> CeroWRT has to decide whether it is an experimental build, or > something that > > >>>>> will eventually be used in production, so these decisions can be > made > > >>>>> consistently. > > >>>> Well, what I was aiming for was for us to get the sqm scripts and > gui > > >>>> up to where they were better than the standard openwrt qos scripts > and > > >>>> then push them up to openwrt to where they could be more widely > > >>>> deployed. > > >>>> > > >>>> Aside from being able to dynamically assign priorities in the gui, > we > > >>>> are there. Except that nfq_codel is currently getting better > results > > >>>> than fq_codel at low bandwidths, and I'm tempted to pour all of > > >>>> simple.qos into C. > > >>>> > > >>>> As for cero's future - certainly since all the snowden revelations > > >>>> I've been going around saying that "friends don't let friends run > > >>>> factory firmware". I would like a stable build of sqm and cerowrt to > > >>>> emerge, and to then go off and work on improving wifi. Regrettably > > >>>> what seems to be happening is more backwards than forwards on the > > >>>> former, and ramping up on the ath9k and ath10k is taking more time > > >>>> than I'd like, and it seems likely I'll be working on those > primarily > > >>>> on another platform and only eventually pushing the results out to > > >>>> cero, mainline kernel > > >>>> > > >>>> So it's still at the "keep plugging away" point for sqm, ipv6, cero > in > > >>>> general, with the stable release always just out of sight. > > >>>> > > >>>> Tackling the ipv6 problem is next on my agenda on cero, and getting > a > > >>>> test suite going is next on my day job. > > >>>> > > >>>>> I concur with your ADSL setup suggestion as default. I have been > running the > > >>>>> Sebastian Moeller ping script overnight to calculate ADSL overhead > for the > > >>>>> last several days. After several hours of curve fitting using > Octave, an > > >>>>> overhead result is displayed. This novel approach works well. > > >>>> It would be nice to get to where we could autoconfigure a router > using > > >>>> tools like these with no human intervention. This includes bandwidth > > >>>> estimation. > > >>>> > > >>>>> The overhead for the particular setup I use was 40 for PPPoE, and > 10 for > > >>>>> PPPoA. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The default you suggest is a suitable starting point, I suggest. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 04/01/14 18:16, Rich Brown wrote: > > >>>>>> QUESTION #5: I still don’t have any great answers for the Link > Layer > > >>>>>> Adaptation overhead descriptions and recommendations. In an > earlier message, > > >>>>>> (see > > >>>>>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/2013-December/001914.html > > >>>>>> and following messages), Fred Stratton described the overheads > carried by > > >>>>>> various options, and Sebastian Moeller also gave some useful > advice. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> After looking at the options, I despair of giving people a clear > > >>>>>> recommendation that would be optimal for their equipment. > Consequently, I > > >>>>>> believe the best we can do is come up with “good enough” > recommendations > > >>>>>> that are not wrong, and still give decent performance. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> In this spirit, I have changed Draft #3 of the “Setting up SQM” > page to > > >>>>>> reflect this understanding. See > > >>>>>> > http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWrt_310 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> ADSL/ATM link: Choose “ADSL/ATM", and set Per Packet > Overhead to > > >>>>>> 40 > > >>>>>> VDSL2 link: Choose “VDSL”, and set Per Packet Overhead to > 8 > > >>>>>> Other kind of link (e.g., Cable, Fiber, Ethernet, other > not > > >>>>>> listed): Choose “None (default)”, and set Per Packet Overhead to 0 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> NB: I have changed the first menu choice to “ADSL/ATM” and the > second to > > >>>>>> “VDSL” in the description. I would ask that we change to GUI to > reflect > > >>>>>> those names as well. This makes it far easier/less confusing to > talk about > > >>>>>> the options. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> As always, I welcome help in setting out clear recommendations > that work > > >>>>>> well for the vast majority of people who try CeroWrt. Thanks. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Rich > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list > > >>>>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > >>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list > > >>>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > >>>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list > > >>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > > >