From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-x234.google.com (mail-qg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::234]) (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 7019B21F150 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 11:46:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by qgfh3 with SMTP id h3so20313887qgf.13 for ; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 11:46:34 -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=g8IPC9YxVQS4XrZj38XcOfP0jixnr4I+rw9s78iT2Jk=; b=NxbE6FIV6r+H+mNpi5DIeIbd2GX6pnMpN2R2E7CtVPVfdm3949a6CSyYHeb6dtDtsv 6OaI5ZZZ3Bg+wYV5+XdxBlpaTQiOpDWJQOsBZH/ShxFmlr8+Q1K+R3BS2c68orGMV9i4 9d8ezBjkHRm9xT17dd+rzEuvQwgCWRvuol8KQnPR7XyLbzaMC1zNfGxYv3kF/efYCWF4 bJ6EVY+iKhcZVYGH35Iv+Ghslv79Wk2gDEFqZmNe7J09iw/iXdZUfCedAavY6vK0art7 HubUWculpZicynXtc9Tt8tRjZY2hihxEjhvkicQntVwuS0S09LugXFP5knswyMJeshj4 ++Tw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.86.199 with SMTP id p65mr26262209qgd.49.1425757594880; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 11:46:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.96.191.5 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 11:46:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 19:46:34 +0000 Message-ID: From: Alan Jenkins To: Sebastian Moeller Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] YA adsl result, in the UK, download already suprisingly well-shaped 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: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 19:47:05 -0000 On 07/03/2015, Alan Jenkins wrote: > snipped and CC'd for again for record > > On 05/03/2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >> >> On Mar 5, 2015, at 13:55 , Alan Jenkins >> >> wrote: >> >>> On 05/03/2015, Sebastian Moeller 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