[Cerowrt-devel] [Codel] happy 4th!

Andrew McGregor andrewmcgr at gmail.com
Tue Jul 9 03:30:00 EDT 2013

Possibly a better simulation environment than netem would be ns-3's NSC
(network simulation cradle), which lets you connect up multiple VMs over an
emulated network in userspace... obviously, you better have a multicore
system with plenty of resources available, but it works very nicely and
needs no physical network at all.  ns-3 virtual network nodes also speak
real protocols, so you can talk to them with real tools as well (netcat to
a ns-3 virtual node, for example, or ping them).  I suppose it would be
possible also to bridge one of the TAP devices ns-3 is talking on with a
real interface.

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:

> this really, really, really is the wrong list for this dialog. cc-ing codel
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >
> >> Did a few test runs on my setup. Here are some figures (can't go higher
> >> than 100mbit with the hardware I have, sorry).
> >
> >
> > Thanks, much appreciated!
> >
> >
> >> Note that I haven't done tests at 100mbit on this setup before, so can't
> >> say whether something weird is going on there. I'm a little bit puzzled
> >> as to why the flows don't seem to get going at all in one direction for
> >> the rrul test. I'm guessing it has something to do with TSQ.
> >
> >
> > For me, it shows that FQ_CODEL indeed affects TCP performance negatively
> for
> > long links, however it looks like the impact is only about 20-30%.
> I would be extremely reluctant to draw any conclusions from any test
> derived from netem's results at this point. (netem is a qdisc that can
> insert delay and loss into a stream) I did a lot of netem testing in
> the beginning of the bufferbloat effort and the results differed so
> much from what I'd got in the "real world" that I gave up and stuck
> with the real world for most of the past couple years. There were in
> particular, major problems with combining netem with any other
> qdisc...
> https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Best_practices_for_benchmarking_Codel_and_FQ_Codel
> One of the simplest problems with netem is that by default it delays
> all packets, including things like arp and nd, which are kind of
> needed in ethernet...
> That said, now that more problems are understood, toke and I, and
> maybe matt mathis are trying to take it on...
> The simulated results with ns2 codel were very good in the range
> 2-300ms, but that's not the version of codel in linux. It worked well
> up to about 1sec, actually, but fell off afterwards. I have a set of
> more ns2-like patches for the ns2 model in cerowrt and as part of my
> 3.10 builds that I should release as a deb soon.
> Recently a few major bugs in htb have come to light and been fixed in
> the 3.10 series.
> There have also been so many changes to the TCP stack that I'd
> distrust comparing tcp results between any given kernel version. The
> TSQ addition is not well understood, and I think, but am not sure,
> it's both too big for low bandwidths and not big enough for larger
> ones...
> and... unlike in the past where tcp was being optimized for
> supercomputer center to supercomputer center, the vast majority of tcp
> related work is now coming out of google, who are optimizing for short
> transfers over short rtts.
> It would be nice to have access to internet2 for more real world testing.
> >
> > What's stranger is that latency only goes up to around 230ms from its
> 200ms
> > "floor" with FIFO, I had expected a bigger increase in buffering with
> TSQ, here, probably.
> > Have you done any TCP tuning?
> Not recently, aside from turning up tsq to higher defaults and lower
> defaults without definitive results.
> > Would it be easy for you to do tests with the streams that "loads up the
> > link" being 200ms RTT, and the realtime flows only having 30-40ms RTT,
> > simulating downloads from a high RTT server and doing interactive things
> to
> > a more local web server.
> It would be a useful workload. Higher on my list is emulating
> cablelab's latest tests, which is about the same thing only closer
> statistically to what a real web page might look like - except
> cablelabs tests don't have the redirects or dns lookups most web pages
> do.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> > Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> >
> --
> Dave Täht
> Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt:
> http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html
> _______________________________________________
> Codel mailing list
> Codel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20130709/fd9c93b3/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Cerowrt-devel mailing list