[Cerowrt-devel] Proper AQM settings for my connection?

[Sebastian Moeller]

Rich Brown <richb.hanover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:32 PM, Hector Ordorica <hechacker1 at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I'm running 3.10.13-2 on a WNDR3800, and have used the suggested
>> settings from the latest draft:
>> 
>>
>http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWrt_310
>> 
>> I have a 30Mb down / 5Mb upload cable connection.
>> 
>> With fq_codel, even undershooting network upload bandwidth by more
>> than 95%, I'm seeing 500ms excessive upload buffering warnings from
>> netalyzr. Download is ok at 130ms. I was previously on a 3.8 release
>> and the same was true.
>
>I have seen the same thing, although with different CeroWrt firmware.
>Netalyzr was reporting
>> 500 msec buffering in both directions.
>
>However, I was simultaneously running a ping to Google during that
>Netalyzr run, and the
>ping times started at ~55 msec before I started Netalyzr, and
>occasionally they would bump
>up to 70 or 80 msec, but never the long times that Netzlyzr reported...
>
>I also reported this to the Netalyzr mailing list and they didn’t seem
>surprised. I’m not sure how to interpret this.
>
>> With pie (and default settings), the buffer warnings go away:
>> 
>>
>http://n2.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca208a-32182-9424fd6e-5c5f-42d7-a9ea
>> 
>> And the connection performs very well while torrenting and gaming.
>> 
>> Should I try new code? Or can I tweak some variables and/or delay
>> options in scripts for codel?
>
>A couple thoughts:
>
>- There have been a bunch of changes between 3.10.13-2 and the current
>version (3.10.24-5, which seems pretty stable). You might try
>upgrading. (See the “Rough Notes” at the bottom of
>http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/CeroWrt_310_Release_Notes
>for the progression of changes).
>
>- Have you tried a more aggressive decrease to the link speeds on the
>AQM page (say, 85% instead of 95%)?

      This will not affect the report by netalyzr by much, and it will most likely increase the reported buffering. Netalyzr fills fq_codels buffer and finishes before fq_codel get serious dropping packets to get control over the unruly netalyzr flow.

>
>- Can we get more corroboration from the list about the behavior of
>Netalyzer?

       Yes, several people have stumbled over this issue in the past, probably indicating we should write a FAQ or wiki page about the matter to avoid this being rediscovered again and again. I really like Dave's proposed concurrent ping test...

Best Regards
      Sebastian

>
>Rich
>_______________________________________________
>Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Hi Rich,
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20131221/96123198/attachment-0001.html>