[Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released

[Dave Taht]

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra at wpi.edu> wrote:
> And IPv6 over the HE tunnel:
>
> root at cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh -H netperf6.richb-hanover.com
> Testing against netperf6.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> ............................................................................
>  Download:  21.56 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 77 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 14.477
>     10pct: 15.469
>    Median: 17.646
>       Avg: 18.906
>     90pct: 23.540
>       Max: 36.302
> ............................................................................
>    Upload:  5.85 Mbps
>   Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>       Min: 14.589
>     10pct: 15.579
>    Median: 18.156
>       Avg: 18.323
>     90pct: 21.192
>       Max: 25.282

That's pretty lame compared to your ipv4 results, but the length of
the path looks the same... puzzling... How much further (or less far)
is rich's box (traceroute6 -n netperf6.richb-hanover.com) on ipv6 vs
ipv4 (traceroute -n )

I have certainly seen bottlenecks, excessive delay, and packet loss on
he's gateways.

An "mtr" might be revealing during the test for spotting packet loss
further on the path.

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:02:37PM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>> Here are some betterspeedtest.sh results for 3.10.36-1:
>>
>> First, without SQM enabled:
>>
>> root at cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
>> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
>> ............................................................
>>  Download:  52.39 Mbps
>>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>       Min: 15.281
>>     10pct: 18.302
>>    Median: 28.502
>>       Avg: 32.891
>>     90pct: 56.776
>>       Max: 74.282
>> .............................................................
>>    Upload:  11.07 Mbps
>>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>       Min: 15.341
>>     10pct: 18.669
>>    Median: 82.480
>>       Avg: 126.662
>>     90pct: 248.102
>>       Max: 278.644
>>
>> And now, with SQM set to 80% up/down numbers from above:
>>
>> root at cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
>> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
>> ............................................................
>>  Download:  32.84 Mbps
>>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>       Min: 15.623
>>     10pct: 16.077
>>    Median: 17.634
>>       Avg: 17.982
>>     90pct: 19.653
>>       Max: 23.272
>> .............................................................
>>    Upload:  8.25 Mbps
>>   Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>       Min: 16.001
>>     10pct: 17.623
>>    Median: 19.796
>>       Avg: 19.820
>>     90pct: 21.716
>>       Max: 23.228
>> root at cerowrt:~#
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
>> > + openwrt merge
>> > ++ fix for dhcpv6 renew problem
>> > + actually tested for an hour so far on 5.4ghz, with a us countrycode
>> > and wpa+psk enabled...
>> >
>> > Get it at:
>> >
>> > http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/cerowrt/wndr/3.10.36-1/
>> >
>> > but: there isn't much other reason to upgrade to this...
>> >
>> > - no progress on the wifi bug - but I am beating up wifi with a variety of
>> > devices and scripts today hoping to make it fail, and bringing up a
>> > bunch more tomorrow.
>> >
>> > - toke's script relies on stratum '16' changing, and it doesn't with openwrt's
>> > ntp, it seems....
> _______________________________________________
> 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