. These should allow you to set up cake from inside the sqm gui (but it is only lightly tested). > >> >> 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 > > betterspeedtest.sh not installed Too bad, this would be nice as it measures downlink and uplink sequentially instead of simultaneously so it can help figure out if only one direction is improperly shaped. Could I convince you to install Rich’s betterspeedtest.sh script as well, it should be in the same repository as netperfrunner.sh? > > sh betterspeedtest.sh -4 -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.ne > t -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 > sh: can't open 'betterspeedtest.sh' > 2015-07-10 20:10:55 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4 streams down and up while pinging netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net. Takes about 150 seconds. > Download: 6.8 Mbps > Upload: 0.59 Mbps > Latency: (in msec, 152 pings, 0.00% packet loss) > Min: 73.911 > 10pct: 232.211 > Median: 308.556 > Avg: 305.686 > 90pct: 376.183 > Max: 412.553 This just shows that latency still is bounded badly... > >> >> >> 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. >>> >>> script configuring qdiscs and overhead 40 on >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> script configuring qdiscs on flows raw >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> script configuring qdiscs and overhead 36 on >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> On 10/07/15 16:19, Alan Jenkins wrote: >>>> I'm glad to hear there's a working version (even if it's not in the current build :). >>>> >>>> Do you have measurable improvements with overhead configured (v.s. unconfigured)? >>>> >>>> I've used netperfrunner from CeroWrtScripts, e.g. >>>> >>>> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p $ISP_ROUTER >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> (But it seems to only make a small difference for me, which always surprises Seb). >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> On 10/07/15 15:52, Fred Stratton wrote: >>>>> You are absolutely correct. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> On lupin undeclared version 4, the current release based on r46117, the >>>>> values were not recognised. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/07/15 13:57, Jonathan Morton wrote: >>>>>> 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". >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Jonathan Morton >>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >