<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 9, 2017, at 9:52 PM, Jonathan Morton <<a href="mailto:chromatix99@gmail.com" class="">chromatix99@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 9 Feb, 2017, at 18:36, Pete Heist <<a href="mailto:peteheist@gmail.com" class="">peteheist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">I’m seeing good latency results for Cake at lower MCS levels (graphs below), in case that wasn’t already known.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Yes - despite its complexity, Cake has always performed well on latency in comparison to other qdiscs.<br class=""><br class="">I gather this time you’re comparing it against the mac80211 fq_codel, rather than a conventional qdisc stack?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Yes, this is on stock LEDE, and I hope to complete results on Chaos Calmer.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I haven’t always seen Cake’s latency numbers lower compared to fq_codel. If I take these two:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_fd-wifi-both_40mbit/index.html" class="">http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_fd-wifi-both_40mbit/index.html</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_fd-wifi-both_40mbit/index.html" class="">http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_fd-wifi-both_40mbit/index.html</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">FQ-CoDel did better in this case, but it was running on the AP (OM2P-HS, 520 MHz MIPS 74Kc). When run on higher powered Intel routers it basically tied fq_codel:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_fd-eth-ap_100ms_40mbit/index.html" class="">http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_fd-eth-ap_100ms_40mbit/index.html</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_fd-eth-ap_target_5ms_interval_100ms_40mbit/index.html" class="">http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/fq_codel_fd-eth-ap_target_5ms_interval_100ms_40mbit/index.html</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">but then as you lower the bitrate, Cake’s performance on the rrul test seems to get better relative to fq_codel:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/mcstmp/mcs_latency.png" class="">http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/mcstmp/mcs_latency.png</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I look forward to the throughput shifts being solved, where I see results like this:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><a href="http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth-ap_100ms_80mbit/index.html" class="">http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake_hd-eth-ap_100ms_80mbit/index.html</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This is the only thing so far that would keep me from recommending it for my ISP to test. Otherwise the results from Cake are promising… :)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Pete</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>