[Cerowrt-devel] Equivocal results with using 3.10.28-14
woody77 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 24 09:56:59 EST 2014
Do you have the latest (head) version of netperf and netperf-wrapper? some
changes were made to both that give better UDP results.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Rich Brown <richb.hanover at gmail.com> wrote:
> CeroWrt 3.10.28-14 is doing a good job of keeping latency low. But... it
> has two other effects:
> - I don't get the full "7 mbps down, 768 kbps up" as touted by my DSL
> provider (Fairpoint). In fact, CeroWrt struggles to get above 6.0/0.6 mbps.
> - When I adjust the SQM parameters to get close to those numbers, I get
> increasing levels of packet loss (5-8%) during a concurrent ping test.
> So my question to the group is whether this behavior makes sense: that we
> can have low latency while losing ~10% of the link capacity, or that
> getting close to the link capacity should induce large packet loss...
> Experimental setup:
> I'm using a Comtrend 583-U DSL modem, that has a sync rate of 7616 kbps
> down, 864 kbps up. Theoretically, I should be able to tell SQM to use
> numbers a bit lower than those values, with an ATM plus header overhead
> with default settings.
> I have posted the results of my netperf-wrapper trials at
> http://richb-hanover.com - There are a number of RRUL charts, taken with
> different link rates configured, and with different link layers.
> I welcome people's thoughts for other tests/adjustments/etc.
> Rich Brown
> Hanover, NH USA
> PS I did try the 3.10.28-16, but ran into troubles with wifi and ethernet
> connectivity. I must have screwed up my local configuration - I was doing
> it quickly - so I rolled back to 126.96.36.199.
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cerowrt-devel