[Bloat] Exploring the potential of codel, fq_codel, and qfq

[Dave Taht]

After running those numbers I tried pure codel with ecn and with noecn
just to verify results, against the 50 streams.

of note: I was unable to duplicate the initial 120ms
spike I saw. Definately more tests and more rigorous testing is needed.

All tests were against v13 of the code.

codel ecn off, you get an initial spike of about 30ms, then it settles
down in this range.

64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=19 ttl=64 time=4.62 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=20 ttl=64 time=2.06 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=21 ttl=64 time=4.28 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=22 ttl=64 time=1.03 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=23 ttl=64 time=8.11 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=24 ttl=64 time=5.10 ms

TCP_RR is: 112.69

With ecn:

64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=46 ttl=64 time=10.6 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=47 ttl=64 time=5.66 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=48 ttl=64 time=11.8 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=49 ttl=64 time=3.68 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=50 ttl=64 time=10.2 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=51 ttl=64 time=12.8 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=52 ttl=64 time=2.62 ms
64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=53 ttl=64 time=7.86 ms

TCP_RR: 102

All of these sets of results need more rigor attached.




-- 
Dave Täht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
http://www.bufferbloat.net