[Cerowrt-devel] 3.10.36-1 dev build released
Dave Taht
dave.taht at gmail.com
Sun Apr 6 17:44:03 EDT 2014
While mtr is at best an unreliable measurement, your data certainly
points to problems on the ipv6 portion of the path leading to your
reduced ipv6 throughput figures.
You might want to find another he gateway closer to you to use, or
one better connected. he has pretty good forums if you'd like to engage
them there...
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra at wpi.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 05:57:44PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
>> 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 )
>
> Without any testing going on:
>
> My traceroute [v0.82]
> a (::) Sun Apr 6 00:35:55 2014
> Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit
> Packets Pings
> Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
> 1. 2001:470:89c6:3::1 0.0% 25 1.7 1.7 1.4 3.4 0.4
> 2. canderson-2.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.i 0.0% 25 25.3 22.5 20.6 27.6 1.5
> 3. ge3-8.core1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 25 17.2 21.1 16.0 37.6 5.3
> 4. 100ge5-1.core1.ash1.he.net 0.0% 25 25.2 25.7 21.4 34.9 3.7
> 5. xe-0.equinix.asbnva01.us.bb.gin. 33.3% 25 32.7 25.1 22.2 32.7 2.7
> 6. ae-6.r20.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt. 0.0% 25 24.0 27.3 22.5 41.3 5.0
> 7. ae-3.r04.atlnga05.us.bb.gin.ntt. 0.0% 25 43.9 40.4 36.7 53.3 4.5
> 8. xe-0-1-0-17.r04.atlnga05.us.ce.g 0.0% 25 47.8 41.5 35.7 50.3 4.5
> 9. ???
> 10. 2604:180::65be:a189 0.0% 24 37.7 37.9 35.8 40.1 1.3
>
>
> My traceroute [v0.82]
> a (0.0.0.0) Sun Apr 6 00:37:12 2014
> Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit
> Packets Pings
> Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
> 1. 172.30.42.65 0.0% 26 1.5 1.6 1.3 5.7 0.8
> 2. ???
> 3. te-0-0-0-11-sur02.woburn.ma.bost 0.0% 25 25.1 11.0 8.8 25.1 3.4
> 4. be-62-ar01.needham.ma.boston.com 0.0% 25 87.9 65.4 10.4 684.5 168.8
> 5. he-2-7-0-0-cr01.newyork.ny.ibone 0.0% 25 15.7 19.9 15.7 27.6 2.9
> 6. ???
> 7. ae3.nyc32.ip4.tinet.net 0.0% 25 28.6 23.2 16.0 49.7 9.1
> 8. xe-4-3-0.atl11.ip4.tinet.net 0.0% 25 50.3 49.3 46.4 66.2 4.7
> 9. ramnode-gw.ip4.tinet.net 0.0% 25 47.0 50.9 46.8 58.7 3.8
> 10. ???
> 11. 23.226.232.80 0.0% 25 47.8 48.6 46.8 57.2 2.2
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> SQM is now set to 60000/10000.
>
> During the IPv6 test:
>
> My traceroute [v0.82]
> a (::) Sun Apr 6 00:41:12 2014
> Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit
> Packets Pings
> Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
> 1. 2001:470:89c6:3::1 0.0% 138 2.7 1.8 1.2 17.7 1.4
> 2. canderson-2.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.i 0.0% 138 22.9 25.2 20.0 62.9 5.2
> 3. ge3-8.core1.nyc4.he.net 0.0% 137 22.5 25.0 16.2 143.6 11.9
> 4. 100ge5-1.core1.ash1.he.net 0.0% 137 22.6 29.0 21.2 72.7 7.1
> 5. xe-0.equinix.asbnva01.us.bb.gin. 40.1% 137 25.7 31.1 22.4 147.9 16.6
> 6. ae-6.r20.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt. 0.0% 137 22.9 29.5 22.1 72.0 8.2
> 7. ae-3.r04.atlnga05.us.bb.gin.ntt. 11.7% 137 37.1 41.4 36.2 74.5 5.4
> 8. xe-0-1-0-17.r04.atlnga05.us.ce.g 0.0% 137 39.9 43.6 35.8 79.9 6.8
> 9. ???
> 10. 2604:180::65be:a189 0.0% 137 36.6 41.1 36.0 59.8 4.5
>
>
> 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: 27.2 Mbps
> Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> Min: 14.666
> 10pct: 15.606
> Median: 18.254
> Avg: 21.101
> 90pct: 29.038
> Max: 55.143
> ...........................................................................
> Upload: 6.57 Mbps
> Latency: (in msec, 76 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> Min: 14.753
> 10pct: 15.233
> Median: 17.599
> Avg: 17.591
> 90pct: 19.674
> Max: 24.718
>
> IPv4 test:
>
> root at cerowrt:~# sh betterspeedtest.sh
> Testing against netperf.richb-hanover.com while pinging gstatic.com (60 seconds in each direction)
> ............................................................
> Download: 46.11 Mbps
> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> Min: 16.011
> 10pct: 16.463
> Median: 19.134
> Avg: 19.743
> 90pct: 22.525
> Max: 28.650
> ............................................................
> . Upload: 8.97 Mbps
> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> Min: 16.214
> 10pct: 16.904
> Median: 19.154
> Avg: 19.151
> 90pct: 20.989
> Max: 22.683
>
>> > 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
More information about the Cerowrt-devel
mailing list