Re: [Cerowrt-devel] YA adsl result, in the UK, download already suprisingly well-shaped

[Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com>]

On 07/03/2015, Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
> snipped and CC'd for again for record
>
> On 05/03/2015, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 13:55 , Alan Jenkins
>> <alan.christopher.jenkins@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/03/2015, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm only shaping upload, because I can't measure any improvement
>>>>> from shaping download.
> [which seems kinda hopeful for the cause]
>
>>>> 	Interesting, in my case I need to shape both properly otherwise my
>>>> netperf-runner rrul test show too high latencies.
>
>>> Disregard, I suck.  It's not "too high" for me, because I don't use
>>> anything like voip.  But there is 10-20ms in it.
>>>
>>> Last time I gave up getting netperf to on debian (it just kept
>>> stalling out).  I ran it on the router, maybe that screwed up the
>>> measurements.  Now I have a Fedora to test with and sqm-scripts is
>>> definitely living up to the hype :)
>>>
>>> unshaped:
>>>
>>> 2015-03-05 12:16:06 Testing against netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4)
>>> with 5 simultaneous sessions while pinging 89.243.96.1 (60 seconds in
>>> each direction)
>>> .............................................................
>>> Download:  10.84 Mbps
>>>  Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>>      Min: 21.100
>>>    10pct: 23.700
>>>   Median: 34.700
>>>      Avg: 34.536
>>>    90pct: 47.100
>>>      Max: 54.400
>>>
>>>
>>> shaped 12500 (and I'm going to use 11500):
>>>
>>> Download:  10.14 Mbps
>>>  Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>>      Min: 20.800
>>>    10pct: 21.400
>>>   Median: 23.900
>>>      Avg: 24.010
>>>    90pct: 26.100
>>>      Max: 29.900
>>
>> 	If you install netperf-wrapper
>> (https://github.com/tohojo/netperf-wrapper)
>> and run a test like:
>>  date ; ping -c 10 netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net ; ./netperf-wrapper --ipv4
>> -l
>> 300 -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net rrul -p all_scaled --disable-log -t
>> your_configuration_name_here
>>
>> you should be able to see even bigger improvements for shaped versus
>> unshaped (the rrul test will try to saturate both up and downlink, or use
>> /netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net to simultaneously load up
>> and downlink without netperf-wrapper) I expect almost orders of magnitude
>> improvements ;)
>
> I'm being pedantic here, but you're wrong :).  netperf-runner only
> shows 5-7ms difference.  That might be part of why I struggled to
> measure it last time.
>

Yeah, if you're pinging gstatic.com the test gets too noisy to trust
on it's own (pinging the first-hop router seems more stable though)

2015-03-07 19:40:18 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4
streams down and up while pinging gstatic.com. Takes about 30 seconds.
 Download:  9.43 Mbps
   Upload:  0.37 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 32 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 24.000
    10pct: 24.800
   Median: 39.700
      Avg: 41.422
    90pct: 55.100
      Max: 67.700

v.s. limited download

2015-03-07 19:42:08 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4
streams down and up while pinging gstatic.com. Takes about 30 seconds.
 Download:  8.25 Mbps
   Upload:  0.4 Mbps
  Latency: (in msec, 30 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
      Min: 23.400
    10pct: 24.900
   Median: 38.200
      Avg: 39.133
    90pct: 53.500
      Max: 76.800