Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

[Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1662 bytes --]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote:

> 	Thanks a lot, interesting data! Was this test stressing both 
> directions at the same time? (My guess is if the test was UDP i don’t 
> know, for a TCP test I am quite confident that it was uni-directional as 
> the @full MTU data does not show enough loss to accommodate the roughly 
> 2% reverse ACK traffic for the opposite direction).

It was TCP using iperf3, so it was larger data packets one direction and 
ACKs going the other direction.

> So basically (1 - (795.390410959/800))*100 = 0.58 % unexplained loss, not bad

Oh, iperf3 can tell you packets lost, so I can re-run the tests and tell 
you exactly how many packets were lost and within what 1 second interval 
they were lost. My guess is that it would be better to run something else. 
My numbers were not meant to be as exact as you have used for calculation, 
I'd say I aimed for approximate number. I'll do a test run and give you 
more exact data.

> As Dave said it would be nice see RRUL data from the same testbed. It 
> would be so nice if flint had a way to send different sized TCP packets… 
> (I guess this might be faked with MSS clamping in the router and 
> relaying on path MTU discovery?)

That is my next thing to test.

> 	The 1200AC retailed for around 200EUR in Germany the 1900ACv2 will 
> be closer to 300EUR I guess, not too expensive but certainly above my 
> impulse buy limit ;)

Yes, I paid 195 EUR for it (1790 SEK), which includes 25% VAT. It's around 
150 USD (not including tax) so I'm hoping it'll drop 10-20% in price when 
it's more widely available in Europe.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se