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 EFC2A21F995 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id A9FA3A1; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:03:19 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1435381399; bh=zTKUHF8XBdMaK5jZh/57oC41MapsNC62YM+7HlazkWI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=w/ClofqN9U04AAmWyDasLXfqIQ0jaTfnzqjLnFWEw6dmmyWBpnB3FwfYJOlmi13Y7 XAZEPMEpXKdfNf0kjYpWH6nTYQaUVGQyz5hjHdtYfMbUb5UZNkGg/h7DRj36kqeKhO folV9V18/l2PyoZ/ckvnizAod93u7JTMsiN6Dehk= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4DD9F; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:03:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:03:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <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@lists.bufferbloat.net" 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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 05:03:51 -0000 On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > Yes, but I am unsure from looking at the driver that using ethtool on > the egress on the wrt1200ac will actually work, but pretty sure it will > work if you set it on the server. feel free to try both. :) I set speed 100 on my switch and did some new tests, I left SQM at 500M, don't know what happens then, thought it was worthwile to test? Remember, now I don't have fq_codel in the server->client direction, but there it's an low buffered switchport that is doing the rate adaptation. Btw, now I am running a nightly build that I compiled for myself for the WRT1200AC, so if there is anything you would like me to try to change in the mvneta driver, I can certainly test that. I can do serial console access to the WRT1200AC if needed as well, I already "unbricked" it once. Btw, disregard the title in the flent files, I just realised I forgot to change the title argument. This is without iperf3, with SQM set to 500M, but eth0 at 100megabit/full duplex. http://swm.pp.se/aqm/wrt1200ac-150627-100m-sqm.tar -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se