From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 123093B29D for ; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:41:09 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1593603668; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=F0ea6ry/1PHiuqnHpYGNfSSDXEa4OOgBUwoTOXAlODs=; b=OQg5YxKqkIVQ2zNpxm7RZsDxA1xgcxRlv92WkD3honKBUi8En/T1WRmXXeEncrS47kfH6k 4NMlOrjS2BDCkqPOY4tNTkXgzojdd9j9vgma4YAmZNDVhOebIVeRiRh6B20JgOqiciHynV YG5bTpHcsNSYzkkHeaolb72KwFNYqdo= Received: from mail-qt1-f200.google.com (mail-qt1-f200.google.com [209.85.160.200]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-369-MLV7uIpiPBiPKvMCZ_oWtg-1; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 07:41:05 -0400 X-MC-Unique: MLV7uIpiPBiPKvMCZ_oWtg-1 Received: by mail-qt1-f200.google.com with SMTP id c22so16649098qtp.9 for ; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 04:41:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=F0ea6ry/1PHiuqnHpYGNfSSDXEa4OOgBUwoTOXAlODs=; b=BSvwZTV9LLLqGTBGQ/cg1CZSF+MuO//+m/HHC7HhiCOq8Gv9LtXDvO9Bs7NOvmasdC tVxgRGBzoKyaLYVj81iKJ3epFsB4Kxv2a3/EaE32jfzCJUh2jJWqdJfM5ziZ1Et4rJLR hdYhkwjiaAU0MhYRM6XP8IIk95CtczUVETf2GiLDohT9taL3xvroEk3fzcrEaIuH8ku1 d6fCMDPczOkFKG0LW5VaB4EzHbzLniqpA/LlPHMhp3F1O5smLpC+4ovlEFmQhwc723Vf 0XHydgiIOZOc8bdkkxgyM94OHiHhcU2Xc1oGVdx9z6YCrbxpWPDy/+X/9mXWgEqqnXdC Z4aw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5322X5waa8HnKu5OYlhpBLID8wmNVIHLnK4RP4xfl+s6dxEfMlWH 8mJyMtrGIQhLCeVNpPcP8+CFGbC6eLz3pNh/+aHYu0vQEs4bndCWVdLUowl8oBEgXZXhqZslyYY ZYj1K8T0ybkqFb/2VuvSNrP3VZyAHLB8juNo= X-Received: by 2002:ae9:ed44:: with SMTP id c65mr23091879qkg.104.1593603664472; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 04:41:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwfKyvmOTW4TBegt2x2hjGEaavQNhCPwkCl93MbA7ysmoi+m4RK/86GJy6tIoY47DrIQnZF3A== X-Received: by 2002:ae9:ed44:: with SMTP id c65mr23091860qkg.104.1593603664162; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 04:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk ([2a0c:4d80:42:443::2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a25sm5867464qtk.40.2020.07.01.04.41.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Jul 2020 04:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by alrua-x1.borgediget.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 82F54180325; Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:41:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Michael Yartys Cc: "make-wifi-fast\\\@lists.bufferbloat.net" In-Reply-To: <47UvGuASJi1d_N_OYiYDqGf1DiY6e4YJE0rlWBAcxuFIzUivhEDKwJ5_uFFTZt-LoLKCgKlV3A3vZONpq0gjeS4LyhVdfQuGVAp9aGbH9a4=@protonmail.com> References: <87sgevz1iu.fsf@toke.dk> <709555FC-4203-486B-8B40-86FAD9F0294C@gmx.de> <87lfknz080.fsf@toke.dk> <87a713yxat.fsf@toke.dk> <877dw7ytcq.fsf@toke.dk> <47UvGuASJi1d_N_OYiYDqGf1DiY6e4YJE0rlWBAcxuFIzUivhEDKwJ5_uFFTZt-LoLKCgKlV3A3vZONpq0gjeS4LyhVdfQuGVAp9aGbH9a4=@protonmail.com> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 13:41:00 +0200 Message-ID: <87wo3nea43.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=toke@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Higher latency on upload under poor signal conditions X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2020 11:41:09 -0000 Michael Yartys writes: > I performed a test under good signal conditions, and the average > latency isn't as bad as in the during the test with poor signal > conditions. However, there seems to be a lot of jitter that can > negatively affect latency sensitive applications. The flent data is > attached. Yeah, that does seem less horrible. > I wonder if this is something that can be reported as a bug. The 7260 > is listed as discontinued on Intel's product page, but does that mean > that the firmware won't get any bugfixes? No idea... But I wouldn't be surprised if that is indeed what it means :/ -Toke