[Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: Re: CeroWrt 3.10.24-8 badly bloated?

[Dave Taht]

Pie has a default latency target of 20ms, fq codel 5ms. (But the fq code
target matters less as the target only applies to queue building flows)

A packet takes 13ms to transit the device at 1mbit.

There is a change to fq codel in this release that should make fiddling
with target a low speeds less needed. (But might have other problems) Still
a comparison at roughly the same target vs a vs pie in your environment
would be very interesting.

I suggested 25ms as a test (as pie never makes 20ms anyway)

I came close to inserting a simple formula to start increasing the target
below 4mbit in this release.

On Dec 27, 2013 11:25 AM, "Sebastian Moeller" <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Fred,
>
> you could try to put "target 25ms" without the quotes into the advanced
egress options field in the "Queue Discipline" tab, that is exposed after
checking "Show Dangerous Configuration". I would love to hear whether that
worked or not (I am not able to test anything myself). Maybe posting the
output of "tc -d qdisc" and "tc class show dev ge00" would help. Good luck…
>
>
> Best Regards
>         Sebastian
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2013, at 20:20 , Fred Stratton <fredstratton at imap.cc> wrote:
>
> > I have been using pie for approximately 3 weeks.
> >
> > You are correct, in that the outbound speed is about 800 - 900 kb/s.
> >
> > I shall try what you suggest, but do not know how to express the target
of 25 ms as a configuration option.
> >
> >
> > On 27/12/13 19:15, Dave Taht wrote:
> >> Dear fred: are you sticking with pie? I was going to suggest you try
fq codel with a target 25ms on your outbound. (You are at 800kbit or so as
best I recall?)
> >>
> >> On Dec 27, 2013 11:10 AM, "Fred Stratton" <fredstratton at imap.cc> wrote:
> >> I upgraded to 3.10.24-8 on 2013-12-23.
> >>
> >> I modified /etc/fixdaemons, adding
> >> /etc/init.d/sqm restart
> >>
> >> input the appropriate sqm settings, transcribed from aqm
> >>
> >> rebooted
> >>
> >> and the build works very well. For ADSL2+ here, it is the best so far.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 27/12/13 18:55, Dave Taht wrote:
> >>> A race condition appears to have crept in...
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht at gmail.com>
> >>> Date: Dec 27, 2013 10:47 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] CeroWrt 3.10.24-8 badly bloated?
> >>> To: "Richard E. Brown" <richb.hanover at gmail.com>
> >>> Cc:
> >>>
> >>> Probably didn't start sqm properly
> >>>
> >>> Restart it by hand via /etc/init.d/sqm restart
> >>>
> >>> tc -s qdisc show dev ge00
> >>>
> >>> Should show htb and fq codel.
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 27, 2013 10:36 AM, "Rich Brown" <richb.hanover at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>> So I screwed up my courage and replaced my 3.10.18-? firmware in my
primary router with 3.10.24-8. That version had worked well as a secondary,
so I figured, What the heck… Let’s give it try.
> >>>
> >>> The result was not pretty. I set my link speeds in the SQM page,
chose the defaults for the Queue Discipline tab, and link layer to ATM with
no additional overhead for my DSL link.
> >>>
> >>> Ping times to google are normally ~51-54 msec. But when I fired up
speedtest.net, they jumped to 1500-2500 msec. Is there something I should
look at before reverting? Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Rich
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> >>> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> >>>
> >>> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> > Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20131227/643f2f38/attachment-0002.html>