From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc1-s38.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s38.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.49]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247DD201B88 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:06:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU175-W8 ([65.55.116.9]) by blu0-omc1-s38.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:06:51 -0800 X-TMN: [bxxb/TwY+IAqvM8u7/IX/VzQzLZ7Z3qF] X-Originating-Email: [organ_dr@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_ac1ab273-c5dd-4e7d-bcf2-b2df562a3ed9_" From: Jeremy Tourville To: "cerowrt-users@lists.bufferbloat.net" Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:06:50 -0600 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2014 17:06:51.0329 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB243B10:01CF1DDD] Subject: [Cerowrt-users] SQM Setup and Performance X-BeenThere: cerowrt-users@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Support for user problems regarding cerowrt List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:06:52 -0000 --_ac1ab273-c5dd-4e7d-bcf2-b2df562a3ed9_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello=2C I followed your excellent instructions here - http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_SQM_for_CeroWrt= _310 =20 I am using build 3.10.24-8 =20 I am using a DSL line rated at 6 Mbps down and 512kbps up. My real through= put without SQM enabled is 5.7Mbps down and 450kbps up. After enabling SQM my throughput has dropped to approximately 4.5Mbps down = and 350 kbps up. Does this seem like an amount that is expected? (within n= orms?) It would seem reasonable that I should expect some performance loss at the = expense of better bufferbloat management based on setting 85-95% of actual = download/upload speeds. Please correct me if I am wrong. :-) But my quest= ion is=2C how much is too much? The setting of SQM does fix the bufferbloa= t issue as evidenced by ping testing and times for packets. With SQM on al= l packets were 100ms or less. With SQM off the times jumped to over 500ms = or more during the speed testing.=20 =20 For reference I have set the parameters as indicated in the screenshots. I= have changed only two variables and tested after each change as indicated = in the grid below. =20 =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Que setup script=0A= Per packet=0A= overhead=0A= test=0A= results=0A= =0A= =0A= Test #1=0A= simple.qos=0A= 40=0A= no buffer=2C less=0A= throughput=0A= <100ms=2C 4.5mbps=0A= down=0A= =0A= =0A= Test #2 =0A= simple.qos=0A= 44=0A= no buffer=2C less=0A= throughput=0A= <100ms=2C 4.5mbps=0A= down=0A= =0A= =0A= Test #3=0A= simplest.qos=0A= 40=0A= no buffer=2C less=0A= throughput=0A= <100ms=2C 4.5mbps=0A= down=0A= =0A= =0A= Test #4=0A= simplest.qos=0A= 44=0A= no buffer=2C less=0A= throughput=0A= <100ms=2C 4.5mbps=0A= down =0A= =0A= =0A= =20 I also read your statement-=20 >>>"The CeroWrt development team has been working to nail down a no-brainer= set of instructions for eliminating bufferbloat - the lag/latency that kil= ls voice & video chat=2C gaming=2C and overall network responsiveness. The = hard part is that optimal configuration of the Smart Queue Management (SQM)= link is difficult - there are tons of options an ISP can set. Although Cer= oWrt can adapt to any of them=2C it's difficult to find out the exact chara= cteristics of the link you have." =20 What info do I need to get from my ISP to best optimize my connection? =20 I also recognize that this could be an issue that requires multiple changes= at once. I am curious to know from the experts what your thoughts are on = this. Many thanks in advance! =20 -Jeremy = --_ac1ab273-c5dd-4e7d-bcf2-b2df562a3ed9_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello=2C I followed your excelle= nt instructions here -
http://www.bufferbloat.net/proje= cts/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_SQM_for_CeroWrt_310
 =3B
I am usi= ng build 3.10.24-8
 =3B
I am using a DSL line rated at 6 Mbps dow= n and 512kbps up. =3B My real throughput without SQM enabled is 5.7Mbps= down and 450kbps up.
After enabling SQM my throughput has dropped to ap= proximately 4.5Mbps down and =3B350 kbps up. =3B Does this seem lik= e an amount that is expected? (within norms?)
It would seem reasonable t= hat =3BI should expect some performance loss at the expense of better b= ufferbloat management based on setting 85-95% of actual download/upload&nbs= p=3Bspeeds. =3B Please correct me if I am wrong. :-) =3B But my que= stion is=2C how much is too much? =3B The setting of SQM does fix the b= ufferbloat issue as evidenced by ping testing and times for packets. = =3B With SQM on all packets =3Bwere 100ms or less. =3B With SQM off= the times jumped to over 500ms or more during the speed testing. =3B =3B
For reference I have set the parameters as indicated in the s= creenshots. =3B I have changed only two variables and tested after each= change as indicated in the grid below.
 =3B
=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A=
Que setup scriptPer packet=0A= overheadtest=0A= results
Test #1simple.qos40no buffer=2C less=0A= throughput<=3B100ms=2C 4.5mbps=0A= down
Test #2 =3Bsimple.qos44no buffer=2C less=0A= throughput<=3B100ms=2C 4.5mbps=0A= down
Test #3simplest.qos40no buffer=2C less=0A= throughput<=3B100ms=2C 4.5mbps=0A= down
Test #4simplest.qos44no buffer=2C less=0A= throughput<=3B100ms=2C 4.5mbps=0A= down
 =3B
I also read your statement-
>=3B>=3B>= =3B"The CeroWrt development team has been working to nail down a no-brainer= set of instructions for eliminating bufferbloat - the lag/latency that kil= ls voice &=3B video chat=2C gaming=2C and overall network responsiveness= . The hard part is that optimal configuration of the Smart Queue Management= (SQM) link is difficult - there are tons of options an ISP can set. Althou= gh CeroWrt can adapt to any of them=2C it's difficult to find out the exact= characteristics of the link you have."
 =3B
What info do I need = to get from my ISP to best optimize my connection?
 =3B
I also re= cognize that this could be an issue that requires multiple changes at once.=  =3B I am curious to know from the experts what your thoughts are on th= is. =3B Many thanks in advance!
 =3B
-Jeremy
<= /div> = --_ac1ab273-c5dd-4e7d-bcf2-b2df562a3ed9_--