From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 5544321F0BC for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hms-beagle.home.lan ([93.194.239.173]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MH0SI-1XNQeB1hEg-00DpyX; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 21:41:29 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <5432BD26.1070907@laptop.org> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 21:41:25 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1396119385-16871-1-git-send-email-dave.taht@bufferbloat.net> <1396119385-16871-2-git-send-email-dave.taht@bufferbloat.net> <20140330222952.GA26806@lists.bufferbloat.net> <542C2786.6090704@gmail.com> <20141002014914.GA12656@lists.bufferbloat.net> <2BFE70BD-92CC-4639-8B3C-15EBA32A20A9@gmx.de> <5432BD26.1070907@laptop.org> To: "Richard A. Smith" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:5nHnZoACSMWvIClIOw8zY8+w8ZYfItUj2qol7sGAMJYSiGKkohn /1+NaPcB7bzlS43cIkc/Rhv5xosXDgDjxhN2DWtzgR5lJyUQTU8u2Gv3/RrSnNY6O/W3fQJ MNksWHx5PCUzOiYWBPoLmDTu918kvykCgQJE8smf7+0/IRYjGFfEIwrJzZsBvwNKe4LN3HK iKD4mUFvVZ0OgK02linjw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: Alpha Sparc , openwrt-devel , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [OpenWrt-Devel] [RFC PATCH] packages: Smart Queue Management for AQM Packet Scheduling and Qos from CeroWrt 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: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 19:42:03 -0000 Hi Richard, On Oct 6, 2014, at 18:02 , Richard A. Smith wrote: > On 10/02/2014 10:05 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >=20 >> I assume you are talking about the pure routing performance with = no firewall/NAT and traffic-shaping involved? I think they pretty much = are equal (pretty much the same kernel and most of the cerowrt guts are = from openwrt bb trunk). But I have not tested that (I have only one = cerowrt/openwrt capable router and that pretty much is my main router). >> If you are talking about comparing QOS-scripts with SQM-scripts, = they also seem to top out at roughly 50-60 Mbps (down- and uplink = combined), it seems hfsc (qos-scripts) and HTB (sam-scripts) are equally = expensive on MIPS. >> Now if you are setup to do tests yourself I would love to hear = the results. I would be happy to help you getting SQM-scripts to work = (so far all people interested disappeared before or just after sharing = initial test results). >=20 > Do you still need testers? I have a bit of an interest here. Oh, sure every little bit of testing is helpful (especially on = openwrt, as I am not setup to test openwrt at all). I might be that = SQM-scripts will explode spectacularly, but I hope that there is only a = little =93impedance-mismatch=94 ;) >=20 > I have spare routers that I can run OpenWRT or CeroWRt on and I'm = setup to test with netperf, netperf-wrapper on my local network > ( desktop -> router -> laptop ) it's Gbit so I can easily saturate = the router. That sounds great. I think the first test should be to run SQM = under cerowrt, so you get a feel of how things should look. I typically = run netperf-wrapper rrul tests (for ipv4 and if available for ipv6) = through cerowrt with different settings for SQM. A second step then is = to instal SQM-scripts under openwrt and check whether the same settings = produce the same results ;) >=20 > What I don't have is a lot of time but I can do a few runs in the = evenings or on weekends. =20 I think all that is needed is testing a few relevant shaping = bandwidth combinations (always Downlink/Uplink, 3000Kbps/512Kbps, = 16000Kbps/1000Kbps, 50000Kbps/10000Kbps, 100000Kbps/40000Kbps, and = 0/50000Kbps, with a setting of 0 disabling shaping in a particular = direction, 0/50000Kbps with the ethernet interface set 100Mbps, and with = SQM disabled: pick the test set most relevant to your planned deployment = to save time) And finally it would be great to test whether the ATM link = layer encapsulation also works=85 Basically that is the set of things to test, but the most = important is just testing one of them to see hw SQM-scripts (and = luci-app-sqm works under stock openwrt) > I also am very out of touch with the latest and greatest QoS vs SQM = development and configuration so you will have to feed me test recipes. Oh, happy to help out with this, thanks to Toke=92s = netperf-wrapper my tests typically look like (for say 3000Kbps/512Kbps): date ; ping -c 10 netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net ; ./netperf-wrapper --ipv4 = -l 300 -s 0.4 -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net rrul -p all_scaled = --disable-log -t IPv4_test_D3000Kbps-U512Kbps followed by: date ; ping -c 10 netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net ; ./netperf-wrapper --ipv6 = -l 300 -s 0.4 -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net rrul -p all_scaled = --disable-log -t IPv6_test_D3000Kbps-U512Kbps for links faster than ~5Mbps or so you can skip the -s 0.4 line and for = links slower than 2Mbps you probably need rouse -s 0.8 or even -s 1.0, = running for 5 minutes (-l 300) makes sure you can also judge the = robustness/stability of the shaping... And then simply load the resulting output files in netperf-wrapper=92s = GUI to simplify comparison between the different SQM settings (and since = these tests work independent of the used shaper you could also run the = relevant shaper settings for your own situation through QOS. So you can = compare how these two stack up against each other=85) It might be a good idea to capture the output of: logread and: tc -d qdisc and tc class show dev ge00 (for cerowrt, =93tc class show dev wan=94 for = openwrt, I believe) before each test run on the router (this allows to confirm whether the = selected shaper settings actually were applied properly) I also, very unscientifically, ssh into the router while the tests are = running and start =93top -d 1=94 and visually monitor the %idle and = %sirq (softinterrupts), the first goes to 0% and the second to >90% once = you reached the your router=92s shaping limit. So just let me know what you are willing/ready to test and we will take = it from there okay? (I would already be a happy camper if you could just = install the current SQM-scripts on openwrt and just send me the output = of =93logread=94 after installing and activating SQM, as well as the = output from =93tc -d qdisc=94 before and after enabling SQM, and finally = the output of running =93/etc/init.d/sqm stop ; /etc/init.d/sqm start=94 = on the router=92s console; that hopefully works or at least gives some = indication what might be off. If you could throw in a quick = netperf-wrapper RRUL test through the router I will be most delighted = ;)) Best Regards Sebastian >=20 > --=20 > Richard A. Smith > Former One Laptop per Child