Lets make wifi fast again!
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Michael Yartys <michael.yartys@protonmail.com>
Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Higher latency on upload under poor signal conditions
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:06:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a713yxat.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fQ-GV16qlgI6k9RiyhVFGrDkwkMvGYE6iQTc4H6y7a4I-HXZ4ZVYRit74qPpcDg8UQQENbp7lZwinIZLyKg_hPx1EArregrBxVSUZR2XdIE=@protonmail.com>

Michael Yartys <michael.yartys@protonmail.com> writes:

> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, 16 June 2020 14:03, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Moeller moeller0@gmx.de writes:
>>
>> > Hi Toke,
>> >
>> > > On Jun 16, 2020, at 13:35, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen toke@redhat.com wrote:
>> > > Sebastian Moeller moeller0@gmx.de writes:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Michael,
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Jun 16, 2020, at 12:18, Michael Yartys via Make-wifi-fast make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net wrote:
>> > > > > From: Michael Yartys michael.yartys@protonmail.com
>> > > > > Subject: Higher latency on upload under poor signal conditions
>> > > > > Date: June 16, 2020 at 12:18:38 GMT+2
>> > > > > To: "make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net" make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> > > > > Reply-To: Michael Yartys michael.yartys@protonmail.com
>> > > > > Hi
>> > > > > I decided to run some 8-stream TCP tests at the edge of the range of my WiFi network, and I noticed that I get higher latency when I run an upload compared to a download. The latency when downloading is pretty steady at right above 30 ms, and when I run the upload it hovers around 80-100 ms. I think I know why this happens, but I would like to read the opinion of the mailing list.
>> > > >
>> > > > My naive guess would be that air-time fairness by the AP only directly affects the AP's own transmissions, the stations will in all likelihood not have an fq_codel instance in its wifi-stack (I could be wrong, but I do not believe that the 7260ac intel card actually uses airtime fairness yet/at all). So the 80-100ms might just come from the default wifi parameters which typically are adjusted for peak thoughput instead of a balanced throughput latency under load set-point. Then again that is my guess, so Kruger-Dunning might apply.
>> > >
>> > > 'iw' will tell you:
>> > > $ iw phy | grep TXQ
>> > > * [ TXQS ]: FQ-CoDel-enabled intermediate TXQs
>> >
>> > Sweet! Thanks, as I hedged above, it seems like I am/was in Kruger-Dunning territory ;)
>> >
>> > > $ lspci | grep Wireless
>> > > 02:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation Wireless 8265 / 8275 (rev 78)
>> > > Other than that, the 'lots of retries' theory does sound plausible. Or
>> > > it could be buffering in the firmware. Or a combination of all of that :)
>> >
>> > Out of curiosity, how would one see the retries?
>>
>> Some hardware has counters, but not sure if the Intel devices expose
>> anything. Otherwise, you'll need to sniff the air I'm afraid :/
>
> Is this what I would be looking for (I only included the relevant part of the output)?
>
> $ iw wlp18s0 station dump
> tx packets:	742091
> tx retries:	417
>
> This is the output after running an upload test and getting pretty
> much the same results. I disabled and re-enabled the wireless NIC
> before the test since that seems to reset the stats. It doesn't really
> look like the retry rate is high, but I don't really know what's
> considered high in the first place.

That does not seem overly high, no. I guess 80ms could just be queueing
delay, either in the firmware, or because your driver is not using
TXQs...

-Toke


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-06-16 13:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <mailman.581.1592302723.24343.make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net>
2020-06-16 11:08 ` Sebastian Moeller
2020-06-16 11:35   ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-06-16 11:50     ` Sebastian Moeller
2020-06-16 12:03       ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-06-16 12:59         ` Michael Yartys
     [not found]         ` <fQ-GV16qlgI6k9RiyhVFGrDkwkMvGYE6iQTc4H6y7a4I-HXZ4ZVYRit74qPpcDg8UQQENbp7lZwinIZLyKg_hPx1EArregrBxVSUZR2XdIE=@protonmail.com>
2020-06-16 13:06           ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2020-06-16 13:14             ` Michael Yartys
2020-06-16 14:32               ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-06-30 18:22                 ` Michael Yartys
2020-07-01 11:41                   ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/make-wifi-fast.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87a713yxat.fsf@toke.dk \
    --to=toke@redhat.com \
    --cc=make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    --cc=michael.yartys@protonmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox