From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (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 9A22021F3B4 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id C3FBCA1; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:49:27 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1435330167; bh=zYdmOO8SrvmLUSHcOzdsRXGFFxl95W3ZfGA8G+lJmSg=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=xv/+GANVzudZKGWmG4rI+C7uyouV9A1PvyluNQU0KApK5V42NNzJZls57NaP706Zf tvK+65ji4b2Piz30m9bHq9Cr5J/MEhvNtQAyW7ATM2bNvXSrEGYAAn/n9Bj5cCcN6w dOhv2PfbHkquDezp8Cjev/xfL4saV0YPhKKiOEho= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B9D9F; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:49:27 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:49:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <26463A88-821B-44B7-A728-64BCB0B7C7BB@gmx.de> <55847E32.9000405@gmail.com> <5584823E.4040207@gmail.com> <0129B5FB-9D1B-45FF-84CA-492A6A0B638B@gmx.de> <43D5C3CE-F1F4-4BA5-AEB9-55348661C7BA@gmx.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't) 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, 26 Jun 2015 14:50:00 -0000 On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > Btw, I tried WNDR3800 setting it to 100/100 SQM. It seems to max out > around 25-30k PPS, but the difference is that when the CPU is full, it > seems to delay/ECN-mark packets because there are no packets lost. When > the WRT1200AC runs out of CPU it starts dropping packets. I always have > 0 packets lost with the WNDR3800 when doing iperf3 testing. I found this > difference interesting, wonder where in the forwarding path the > WRT1200AC loses packets? I checked again, and my WDR4900 with same setup doesn't lose packets either. Even at 99% sirq, no packets are lost. WRT1200AC starts to lose packets at 500 megabit/s SQM around MSS 300 and lower. If I turn off gso, tso and gro, I have to go to MSS 600 and above to avoid packet loss. Does flent check for packet loss at all? Perhaps it's something to look into, because with ECN we really don't want to see any packets lost and this might be good to include test results for. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se