From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com (mail-we0-f171.google.com [74.125.82.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5759821F0C4; Wed, 16 May 2012 00:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wejx9 with SMTP id x9so475247wej.16 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 00:20:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q9rQRjxuIJu8ffviPzt2HiUMyllTeco25MX0q/R2FNw=; b=C+SjybY5Yk5uH7jgsIAapxRm3/pa69mYVLwtIm8wx3jJSQ5XPJA/BosP3+TNHzERXI zC6+BgIAxm1NwszEtTzDURTvFZS29/x57bzoTEhBwpsrqpCOhVOHrAUX9WUTZ3LTwWvu BmqjOTk3/HucfV3Hyfl89xG1ekwFZyjNTKbHroGryS8SL0k3nY4ZQag/qJsyLDOmaZuk vGcsOryA6IXKHK9DLNP47SUg7+Q0RkkT3d22wxz5jXdV5k0fUO2nDRport4ZVp0PZlD5 Pa1rvp7mulAWtHuF8weiVmXS8vnAcCvXqlVYJwVCxxrqol6B5XAlGgg/2Hh/085JxO+o NIdQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.74.7 with SMTP id p7mr5018223wiv.20.1337152815297; Wed, 16 May 2012 00:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.115.9 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2012 00:20:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FB3519D.3020809@gmail.com> References: <4FA9FDC0.9010600@superduper.net> <1337148560.8512.1123.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <4FB3519D.3020809@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 00:20:15 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Codel] Exploring the potential of codel, fq_codel, and qfq X-BeenThere: codel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: CoDel AQM discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:20:18 -0000 After running those numbers I tried pure codel with ecn and with noecn just to verify results, against the 50 streams. of note: I was unable to duplicate the initial 120ms spike I saw. Definately more tests and more rigorous testing is needed. All tests were against v13 of the code. codel ecn off, you get an initial spike of about 30ms, then it settles down in this range. 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D19 ttl=3D64 time=3D4.62 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D20 ttl=3D64 time=3D2.06 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D21 ttl=3D64 time=3D4.28 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D22 ttl=3D64 time=3D1.03 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D23 ttl=3D64 time=3D8.11 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D24 ttl=3D64 time=3D5.10 ms TCP_RR is: 112.69 With ecn: 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D46 ttl=3D64 time=3D10.6 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D47 ttl=3D64 time=3D5.66 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D48 ttl=3D64 time=3D11.8 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D49 ttl=3D64 time=3D3.68 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D50 ttl=3D64 time=3D10.2 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D51 ttl=3D64 time=3D12.8 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D52 ttl=3D64 time=3D2.62 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=3D53 ttl=3D64 time=3D7.86 ms TCP_RR: 102 All of these sets of results need more rigor attached. --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 http://www.bufferbloat.net