From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-x241.google.com (mail-lf0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9CCA3B2A3 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x241.google.com with SMTP id x137so6985043lff.1 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 05:21:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=B1h2YcEAhQfK2pdco2Noqk+0AYVjj8zmBhVclq4rm3g=; b=bP0JzItjWFU6SaPzhOxsvUK+KKZCLMQoQwTkmxCtcPMeRaDg0OgYA7hNcvjLotpwVX 9o41S0s3G9+y3JvAdQHayiR1Zjw2lefRU4gAMozdJAZyytaiXYXK5DJEw92w/y36QqrN WlOiJz9inr9cYdXRs0YrCzQUbv0sdWbVsugkEPDjSuLYeQf1EzMKbFYPmyJBgkKJ6Qmy eEpv4+PB3qcI6flfq4A/0a899YIU+ziko4ic3EWpYtFkanTixNiI6RfsNz3fLQYW+8IF sKSVkJ+3D3SuPM6rJqRDU37tID/2FrUY7wfRDNiGX7mCEtXCQ5J9uVV9qnh7vphdwFaD QOzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=B1h2YcEAhQfK2pdco2Noqk+0AYVjj8zmBhVclq4rm3g=; b=LdAjczRqfEMWQalkp+Qpkqv6BcwMBkAkKTtuANzG1ARIWdQAd5ht79ZvWFxGZcik6x Musng9JDkNn00iZ7zcqMuLH3CglVuqtkA2Db7PsCxicwkxIIj1952sOjCwKl2hTjcnVz pnKlFjtqDc/W1EIUXvaZHLOByPeaE/UnOUVv+rTrWcK1K5xe9VbH2wMlYDVRodBACiZE 67u/KAct0HJv13UBSfjL+fWSyjVpzQMwr3Nf9o7nAQO+XQ+orZkzncSNH8S2JkqihZ2d vTew8EJqs2VfTwPm/f7keRxlI6ytbFt5Xz+u8VbB9Xn+RqKbaksLD4C6cDWJUE3JT79h J9IA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H28jKY0cvuFDrkTjucRyd7zrKScD/TEtW8S0E0dMSkydtPOHAR+jKeL16wmixhPgQ== X-Received: by 10.25.0.148 with SMTP id 142mr10955075lfa.156.1490617305464; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 05:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.14] (37-219-158-10.nat.bb.dnainternet.fi. [37.219.158.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h7sm99790lji.10.2017.03.27.05.21.44 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Mar 2017 05:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Jonathan Morton In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 15:21:42 +0300 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= , make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <878tnraqn7.fsf@alrua-x1> To: Jaap Buurman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] Major Bufferbloat 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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:21:46 -0000 > On 27 Mar, 2017, at 14:56, Jaap Buurman wrote: >=20 > Thank you very much for the quick replies! I tried two clients, one = laptop with the Intel 7265ac chipset (Just to be clear, these tests were = done on 2.4ghz n). And another client with an Artheros chipset. I am not = entirely sure which one exactly, I can check in a few hours once I get = home. Both clients were showing the same behavior. The Intel chipset was = using Windows 8.1, while the Artheros chipset was using Windows 10. As a = sidenote, I will try out Ubuntu clients as well once I get home. >=20 > I initially also suspected bloated clients. But both clients showed an = A bufferbloat score on an Archer C7 V2 2.4ghz wifi. This was the exact = same test as the one in the OP, so with 32 upload streams. = Unfortunately, I do not have the Archer anymore, so I cannot repeat the = iperf tests. Both are reasonably powerful routers with good CPUs and decent wifi = capabilities. However, I now notice this from the thread you linked: > As you can see, bufferbloat is fine wired (I am not using SQM, since = that crashes my router, even with fq_codel, it's an outstanding issue = with Mediatek socs). And WAN speeds are more than enough for my wifi = connection. It=E2=80=99s pretty hard to avoid bufferbloat if you don=E2=80=99t have = any bufferbloat mitigation in place. In the download direction you = benefit from the router's mt76 chipset=E2=80=99s support for wifi-stack = AQM/fairness (aka the result of the make-wifi-fast project). In the = upload direction you have to rely on whatever Windows does, which (as = with many things) is grossly inferior. Under Linux with a recent enough kernel, the ath9k driver also has the = make-wifi-fast code fully enabled. One of your wireless clients might = therefore benefit from that. Alas, the Intel chipsets have a different = architecture which makes a full implementation much more difficult. It=E2=80=99s important to realise that bufferbloat always occurs at the = entry end of the bottleneck link. Differences in link bandwidth (which = are very common with wifi, even with the same hardware, if you simply = move around a bit) can easily move that bottleneck from one link to = another. It=E2=80=99s therefore important to have AQM installed on = every link that you can, in both directions. You may want to double-check that your antennas are properly installed = and oriented for best performance. That will tend to improve your wifi = link bandwidth, and might shift the bottleneck back to your uplink, = which appears to be less bloated in the first place. - Jonathan Morton