[Ecn-sane] results of two simple ECN tests

[Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 973 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: veth_ecn.tar.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gzip, Size: 5391 bytes --]