Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net"
	<cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] archer c7 v2, policing, hostapd, test openwrt build
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:47:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E254B728-F641-494C-BD18-FAA33A9D0880@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AFD597EE-0CA3-4A40-8D5D-CD0BDE45C7C8@gmail.com>

Hi Jonathan,


On Mar 24, 2015, at 04:16 , Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
>> On 24 Mar, 2015, at 02:00, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>> So I got around to a bit of rrul testing of the dual egress idea to asses the cost of IFB, but the results are complicated (so most likely I screwed up).
> 
> IFB is normally used on the download direction (as a substitute for a lack of AQM at the ISP), so that’s the one which matters.  Can you try a unidirectional test which exercises only the download direction?  

	I will try to get around to this later this week, not sure whether I manage though.

> This should get the clearest signal - without CPU-load interference from the upload direction.

	I agree, but if IFB redirection truly is costly enough to bother with fixing/avoiding it should also cause a noticeable effect on the full ingress-egress stress test, I would assume. But at least for my limited tests it did not… Or to put it differently, if avoiding the IFB does not increase bandwidth use under full load it is not going to help with getting a router’s combined shaping performance improve, or do I see something wrong. Now maybe it is a critical building block for better performance that is masked at full load by something else, that is why I tried the reduced bandwidth loads (35000 bidirectional) but even there the effect was rather mild… That said, I will retry with download shaping only (vie se00 egress) and simplest.qos (instead of simple.qos) to move the heavy filtering out of the way. I wonder whether anybody has a good idea of how to measure the router’s cpu usage during a rrul test (maybe the main effect of avoiding IFB is not to increase bandwidth usage, but to free up cpu cycles for performing other task, which still would be quite valuable, I guess)

Best Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> - Jonathan Morton
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-24  7:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-23  0:24 Dave Taht
2015-03-23  0:31 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23  1:10 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23  1:18   ` Dave Taht
2015-03-23  1:34 ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23  1:45   ` David Lang
2015-03-23  2:00     ` Dave Taht
2015-03-23  2:10     ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23  2:15       ` Dave Taht
2015-03-23  2:18         ` Dave Taht
2015-03-23  6:09       ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-23 13:43         ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23 16:09           ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-24  0:00             ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-24  0:05               ` Dave Taht
2015-03-24  0:07                 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-24  3:16               ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-24  7:47                 ` Sebastian Moeller [this message]
2015-03-24  8:13                   ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-24  8:46                     ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-29  1:14                     ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-29  6:17                       ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-29 11:16                         ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-29 12:48                           ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-29 14:16                             ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-29 15:13                               ` Jonathan Morton
2015-03-23 17:08       ` David Lang
2015-03-23 16:17 ` Sebastian Moeller
2015-03-23 16:27   ` Dave Taht
2015-03-23 17:07     ` David Lang
2015-03-23 18:16       ` Jonathan Morton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=E254B728-F641-494C-BD18-FAA33A9D0880@gmx.de \
    --to=moeller0@gmx.de \
    --cc=cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    --cc=chromatix99@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox