Re: [Ecn-sane] results of two simple ECN tests

[Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1185 bytes --]

Did you use SACK?

On February 17, 2019 12:26:51 PM GMT+01:00, Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> wrote:
>Attached are some scripts that run two simple tests of ECN with veth
>devices, with and without ECN. The topology is:
>
>client - middlebox (20Mbit htb+fq_codel egress both ways) - net (40ms
>netem delay both ways, i.e. 80ms RTT) - server
>
>Here are some results from the APU2 with Debian 9 / kernel 4.9.0-8:
>
>Test 1 (“One vs one”, two clients uploads competing, one flow each for
>60 seconds, measure total data transferred):
>
>	No ECN, 63.2 + 63.5 transferred = 126.7MB
>	ECN, 63.2 + 61.5 transferred = 124.7MB
>
>Test 2 (“One vs pulses”, client #1: upload for 60 seconds, client #2:
>40x 1M uploads sequentially (iperf -n 1M), measure client #1 data
>transferred):
>
>	No ECN, 63.2 MB transferred
>	ECN, 65.0 MB transferred
>
>Can anyone suggest changes to this test or a better test that would
>more clearly show the benefit of ECN? I guess we’d want more congestion
>and the cost of each lost packet to be higher, meaning higher RTTs and
>more clients?
>
>Pete

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1440 bytes --]