From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30ADB21F1B5 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 23:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id D40539C; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:04:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6E69A; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:04:39 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:04:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= In-Reply-To: <871u79x9kb.fsf@toke.dk> Message-ID: References: <1373223178.486913695@apps.rackspace.com> <871u79x9kb.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-137064504-852270711-1373349879=:8891" Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] happy 4th! 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: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 06:04:42 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---137064504-852270711-1373349879=:8891 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Did a few test runs on my setup. Here are some figures (can't go higher > than 100mbit with the hardware I have, sorry). Thanks, much appreciated! > Note that I haven't done tests at 100mbit on this setup before, so can't > say whether something weird is going on there. I'm a little bit puzzled > as to why the flows don't seem to get going at all in one direction for > the rrul test. I'm guessing it has something to do with TSQ. For me, it shows that FQ_CODEL indeed affects TCP performance negatively for long links, however it looks like the impact is only about 20-30%. What's stranger is that latency only goes up to around 230ms from its 200ms "floor" with FIFO, I had expected a bigger increase in buffering with FIFO. Have you done any TCP tuning? Would it be easy for you to do tests with the streams that "loads up the link" being 200ms RTT, and the realtime flows only having 30-40ms RTT, simulating downloads from a high RTT server and doing interactive things to a more local web server. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se ---137064504-852270711-1373349879=:8891--