Lets make wifi fast again!
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
To: Tim Higgins <tim@smallnetbuilder.com>
Cc: Make-Wifi-fast <make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Uplink vs downlink latency
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:58:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAA93jw7cPBg7j7ip2nx3QVWaEAtHjZwZgkSW28Gw12g6DGw6Hg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5be92b82-ae44-e8f5-9a7a-64fea0093a23@smallnetbuilder.com>

It would be kind of cool if you added a ubnt uap-pro mesh router to
your mix. And (eventually) - reflashed it with our latest openwrt
stuff. that's a 3x3 802.11ac product that I know for sure has most of
our stuff in the default firmware nowadays.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:18 AM Tim Higgins <tim@smallnetbuilder.com> wrote:
>
> I take your point, Bob, and agree single-ended latency measurements like you produce with iperf would be more technically correct.
>
> I write and review for a consumer audience, where ping is the standard for latency aka lag measurement. So that's why I'm using ping.
> That, and the fact that iperf isn't integrated into octoScope's toolset yet. But they're working on it and all their STA instruments are properly time-synced, so the measurements will be accurate.
>
> Thank your for all your work in iperf, BTW. The features you've added are a welcome improvement.
> ===========
> Tim
> On 4/29/2020 8:32 PM, Bob McMahon wrote:
>
> I'm thinking ping may not be ideal for benchmarking OFDMA effects on latency.  Also, the end/end latency preferred seems to me the socket write() to final socket read() per that write(). Also, for TCP, there are the connect times. I realize network stack guys focus on stack related measurements, e.g. RTT, but the latencies users experience include the application level and system level os interactions.
>
> Just some food or thought.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:07 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> throughput and latency are interrelated, whats the throughput?
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:40 PM Tim Higgins <tim@smallnetbuilder.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I finally have my testbed working the way I want and am starting to run tests to see if OFDMA does anything useful.
>> >
>> > This will all be covered in detail in an upcoming SmallNetBuilder article. But I wanted to sanity check something with this esteemed group.
>> >
>> > The tests are basically the flent rtt_fair_var up and down tests ported to the octoScope platform I use for WiFi testing.
>> > The initial work was done on flent, with a lot of hand-holding from Toke. (Thank you, Toke!)
>> >
>> > Using 4 Intel AX200 STAs on Win10. iperf3 is running traffic using TCP/IP with unthrottled bandwidth. I've taken Bjørn's idea and have each STA using a different DSCP priority level, but with TCP/IP traffic, not UDP. I'm sticking to using CS0-7 equivalents and confirmed that the iperf3 --dscp values properly translate to the intended WiFi priority levels.  Each STA has a different priority, either CS0,3,5 or 6 (best effort, excellent effort, video and voice).
>> >
>> > Ping is used to measure latency and always runs from AP to STA. Only TCP/IP traffic direction is reversed between the down and uplink tests.
>> >
>> > One thing that jumps out immediately is that uplink latencies are *much* lower than downlink, with either OFDMA on or off. Attached are three examples. The CDFs are average latency of the 4 STAs.
>> >
>> > The NETGEAR R7800 is a 4x4 AC Qualcomm-based. I'm using this as a baseline product.
>> >
>> > The NETGEAR RAX15 is 2x2 AX Broadcom-based. You can see what I mean when I say OFDMA doesn't help.
>> >
>> > Does this much difference between up and downlink latency pass the sniff test?
>> >
>> > ===
>> > Tim
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>> > Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Make Music, Not War
>>
>> Dave Täht
>> CTO, TekLibre, LLC
>> http://www.teklibre.com
>> Tel: 1-831-435-0729
>> _______________________________________________
>> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
>> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Make-wifi-fast mailing list
> Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/make-wifi-fast



-- 
Make Music, Not War

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-435-0729

  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-30 15:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-29 21:40 Tim Higgins
2020-04-29 23:55 ` Isaac Konikoff
2020-04-30 14:02   ` Tim Higgins
2020-04-30  0:06 ` Dave Taht
2020-04-30  0:32   ` Bob McMahon
2020-04-30 14:18     ` Tim Higgins
2020-04-30 15:58       ` Dave Taht [this message]
2020-04-30 14:13   ` Tim Higgins

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=CAA93jw7cPBg7j7ip2nx3QVWaEAtHjZwZgkSW28Gw12g6DGw6Hg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=dave.taht@gmail.com \
    --cc=make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    --cc=tim@smallnetbuilder.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