From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C4DC21FCB4 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:46:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle-7.home.lan ([217.237.70.193]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MH0eg-1Z9nY71FCM-00Drkl; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:46:21 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <55A00E06.3000000@imap.cc> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:46:19 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <559FA8D4.2030305@imap.cc> <559FDC38.9010400@imap.cc> <559FE294.60801@gmail.com> <55A00E06.3000000@imap.cc> To: Fred Stratton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:c215tHKv3Q2cdcAOnzva4cM/9vqxnJj8GQ/uaLtF5MChya+Ddtq lSQdABt/ZCQIlTdkMRDcxFd7397RF6VqLywjmt5J3JDTcwnEhbW97HnPLOJjcCJSnuTy95x 2drlXfbYV/5jac2fMn4HeOzckV/7CCqi4wiOn90TohCLXOavA0TURYduYD98v8xvwgVWpf1 5HRlY4TwgmjsW5h6gj0AA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:n6p56xB0YT0=:IpYlRPcWSV4B6DQ3CjAR8L QQJ+IqBrTjZvyqZiRI3ufbhU3Tz7RvnYSnwAh3mjh6dEIrQeNoerY9WMkjfBmI9KbVvOeyA5w FGfBybMzqLAFOejGCNFCc07wcyIUxpza3vBAibmWzZQfz4fBTJ1Lv2i7C/nP1B2rBCdUbVRMQ ZKcOXchKxKWk1HySFB1pBzl8TeKXGRDrTCpIPCzOoprKOI95QnWPFy1P79UiV9ng/mVoRIakS sytuAfJuAPvJRaydEO+aIZzx8Zxa8DiYcpEiry44NATXvN4ddAkZSiptSuJJZEbIcr3MvDNln j/Hk90Sdka1U8xGqVmjdYCL8rhWxAwLX9UvWtjfv1QDCtdAc5rTUoYxKoRx2Ua5jsOAXjX7Fp DVYs7w6s/47Wd6dFQCD9qIhtXVFFSHfADK3iVm8gV7DNCLXW/Qlw0Xi+NTNyRqcd+njPRmkcX fxyRdsGzNOF0k77PmK3JLRE7+aEIuBBtmxMYAMazm/dugVDuAz/GFB8EXVgBHq9XzRoNYNsrG A+V8ZCQS+oxh8rGLnT9VLPSFc5bMXSj5QT5nZLNYt2zizkDCXcX9Tro8uQhjQSxesmEnS7+4x OE0cAe0whLDGPb4gxYn6qfR7gx4nXiiEHW0/HbO34rp/8sl8TGHRezyRyiVOCRBFP/s6lRwMS /JjdCJdaUoQG9Z6FaXVPrBSuwsoFZJe0VxYk04cLa+PhHGkaSSmpPwLSUVnUGkA8eCDY= Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Correct syntax for cake commands and atm issues. 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: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:46:55 -0000 Hi Fred, your results seem to indicate that cake is not active at all, as the = latency under load is abysmal (a quick check is to look at the median in = relation to the min and the 90% number, in your examples all of these = are terrible). Could you please post the result of the following = commands on your router: 1) cat /etc/config/sqm 2) tc -d qdisc 3) tc -d class show dev pppoe-wan 4) tc -d class show dev ifb4pppoe-wqn 5) /etc/init.d/sqm stop 6) /etc/init.d/sqm start hopefully these give some insight what might have happened. And finally I would love to learn the output of: sh betterspeedtest.sh -4 -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -t 150 -p = netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -n 4 ; sh netperfrunner.sh -4 -H = netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -t 150 -p netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -n 4 Many Thanks & Best Regards Sebastian On Jul 10, 2015, at 20:25 , Fred Stratton wrote: > By your command > Rebooted to rerun qdisc script, rather than changing qdiscs from the = command-line, so suboptimal process as end-point changed. >=20 > script configuring qdiscs and overhead 40 on >=20 > sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p 2.96.48.1 > 2015-07-10 18:22:08 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4 = streams down and up while pinging 2.96.48.1. Takes about 60 seconds. > Download: 6.73 Mbps > Upload: 0.58 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 62 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 24.094 > 10pct: 172.654 > Median: 260.563 > Avg: 253.580 > 90pct: 330.003 > Max: 411.145 >=20 > script configuring qdiscs on flows raw >=20 > sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p > 78.145.32.1 > 2015-07-10 18:49:21 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4 = streams down and up while pinging 78.145.32.1. Takes about 60 seconds. > Download: 6.75 Mbps > Upload: 0.59 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 59 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 23.605 > 10pct: 169.789 > Median: 282.155 > Avg: 267.099 > 90pct: 333.283 > Max: 376.509 >=20 > script configuring qdiscs and overhead 36 on >=20 > sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p > 80.44.96.1 > 2015-07-10 19:20:18 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4 = streams down and up while pinging 80.44.96.1. Takes about 60 seconds. > Download: 6.56 Mbps > Upload: 0.59 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 62 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 22.975 > 10pct: 195.473 > Median: 281.756 > Avg: 271.609 > 90pct: 342.130 > Max: 398.573 >=20 >=20 > On 10/07/15 16:19, Alan Jenkins wrote: >>=20 >> I'm glad to hear there's a working version (even if it's not in the = current build :). >>=20 >> Do you have measurable improvements with overhead configured (v.s. = unconfigured)? >>=20 >> I've used netperfrunner from CeroWrtScripts, e.g. >>=20 >> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p $ISP_ROUTER >>=20 >> I believe accounting for overhead helps on this two-way test, because = a) it saturates the uplink b) about half that bandwidth is tiny ack = packets (depending on bandwidth asymmetry). And small packets have = proportionally high overhead. >>=20 >> (But it seems to only make a small difference for me, which always = surprises Seb). >>=20 >> Alan >>=20 >> On 10/07/15 15:52, Fred Stratton wrote: >>>=20 >>> You are absolutely correct. >>>=20 >>> I tried both a numeric overhead value, and alternatively = 'pppoe-vcmux' >>> and 'ether-fcs' in the build I crafted based on r46006, which is = lupin >>> undeclared version 2. Everything works as stated. >>>=20 >>> On lupin undeclared version 4, the current release based on r46117, = the >>> values were not recognised. >>>=20 >>> Thank you. >>>=20 >>> I had cake running on a Lantiq ADSL gateway running the same r46006 >>> build. Unfortunately this was bricked by attempts to get homenet >>> working, so I have nothing to report about gateway usage at present. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 10/07/15 13:57, Jonathan Morton wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> You're already using correct syntax - I've written it to be quite >>>> lenient and use sensible defaults for missing information. There = are >>>> several sets of keywords and parameters which are mutually = orthogonal, >>>> and don't depend on each other, so "besteffort" has nothing to do = with >>>> "overhead" or "atm". >>>>=20 >>>> What's probably happening is that you're using a slightly old = version >>>> of the cake kernel module which lacks the overhead parameter = entirely, >>>> but a more up to date tc which does support it. We've seen this >>>> combination crop up ourselves recently. >>>>=20 >>>> - Jonathan Morton >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel