From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 520483CB39 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:48:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id i26so16135736lfc.0 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:48:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=firkhl2iQLcv4WIK6WUr5ELhj2TX6zZ+cxtdl9ms5Q8=; b=JiMAnTJKEbFsHcrP3DvwesDsJLyrj3w9mLE9N0VCHKkF/8ZBNRjPktcq2rb/JyOONx cE/GzyQrkgvhT/bYCDQka2EX+F2vs5yZromfua8RsjKST0mP1QaMIWG91XusjvBU+vvJ gedzv7B5CcGSTaKdrJwwI6FR7RZ80P0H/HwekoXB19J3pjC1hiUbaj3Vk1V921yP4+8O HJIMugWvTqlciZ1+L+tNwgnH9xdAkUmNpYK0tHHEhLeycKS5xxRYLU9HUza7ulCXsaZ/ Idquy6KNxxmxM9EU2PJxpwX+UgFMUV6HiQ/7tC1nAtJioyghRsi7DzRzrvXF78H4t9vq ayIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=firkhl2iQLcv4WIK6WUr5ELhj2TX6zZ+cxtdl9ms5Q8=; b=awP7ZhBgAC0arnExOY4JnWjGjUkZEK46x+rI+25uqCQ1K0H4MNOriP69FP1DkSDsh3 XNlo43ErSwxJTJDQhrzP5CQloLQ38IA8BNQBzaqDilv1NxKFFHRs3CSijoAw3Y+w5hB1 6ii5lFGbTmqcWYa1PSHV1CAhqEXT9ZKTuepPCdLPGIhXMbYvf8aYjnUWhH23oxQMnldb 0p1KtLD49dVBIdCWMIcMXoPM1m3YM7CASQ3stftHwKLZxtUKH0DqUF203WSumSk00SsU 9ythmmy/HbhOmObOusCpDa5qEuRAIi1Ue5Kk7XCduDuFydg6vUEJOedKzorB1AhnxN/D l9OA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdUPFZWOYW0YQheDjLS8m3oA5P9sKzQ2y/I4rrbEE4/jwMWNfAl RFKvo28a3sq3kLpkIuEbHXc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6CHgs/WfO74cyI6UtispPqMDieqRoB+KUBSz/+jIG6teXtHtPkCuvqyYxt3xBxOp6eO1wxbA== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4343:: with SMTP id o3mr14773252lfl.129.1547484499061; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from jonathartonsmbp.lan (83-245-238-230-nat-p.elisa-mobile.fi. [83.245.238.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r203sm161431lff.13.2019.01.14.08.48.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:48:18 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 18:48:16 +0200 Cc: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9B8E2B07-BBDB-41A4-BA21-AB9B4CEFE075@gmail.com> References: <4D6E822B-A866-4513-90CF-93C6E6308F41@gmail.com> To: Rodrigo Alvarez Dominguez X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Subject: Re: [Codel] Codel configuration X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:48:20 -0000 > On 14 Jan, 2019, at 6:17 pm, Rodrigo Alvarez Dominguez = wrote: >=20 > Hi Jonathan > Thanks for your quick answer. REally appreciate it!!! > I wil try later the cake statement (is it the same as codel)?. I am = starting with Codel. So I need to have a better understanding of codel. Cake is a more advanced implementation of the same principles. Its = shaper is more accurate than HTB, and it's easier to configure correctly = than the component qdiscs and filters you're currently using. > Where client asks for a FTP file to server. Link between router-server = has a 150MBit speed with a delay of 250 ms. > Then link between client and router has 10 Mbit and the Codel = algorithm. So I am checking the differences between having codel or not. > Do you have an advice to have a good scenario for testing Codel = properly? Or a document to know how the differences parameter can affect = to the communication? > In my scenario it seems it is better not having Codel. See attached = ClientFTPCodelNO-NO-NO (nocodel) versus ClientFtpCodel1000.. > where a Codel Algorithm of 1000 packets, 13 ms target and 100 interval = is configured First, and most importantly, you're measuring only throughput, while = ignoring latency. The primary benefit of any 'smart queue" is in = reducing latency, preferably with the least practical impact on = throughput. Dumb FIFOs often induce latencies of several seconds when = loaded. The improvement is visible to the user as quicker response and = better reliability of operation while the link is busy. Here's a better = test to try out: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest Second, your Codel parameters are too tight for the relatively = long-latency path you're measuring. You should set "interval" to your = expected path latency (250ms) and "target" to about a tenth of that = (25ms). I would also advise against "noecn" and replace it with "ecn"; = this will safely have no effect if you don't have ECN-enabled traffic, = but reduces packet loss if you do. Cake has an "rtt" parameter so you don't have to manually select a = target and interval, and it unconditionally supports ECN. Updating my = earlier suggestion: tc qdisc replace dev r1-eth0 root handle 1: cake bandwidth = 10000kbit besteffort flows rtt 250ms Third, you should turn on ECN on your end-hosts if you can. Most = servers will respond with ECN traffic if requested, so search for = instructions for enabling ECN on your own machine. - Jonathan Morton