[Cerowrt-devel] SQM Question #5: Link Layer Adaptation Overheads

Mon Jan 6 06:12:21 PST 2014

Hi Fred,

On Jan 6, 2014, at 10:52 , Fred Stratton <fredstratton at imap.cc> wrote:

> I have been operating the latest build with 6relayd disabled. The henet /48 I have been allocated is subnetted correctly, presumably by dnsmasq.
> 
> I adopted the suggestions to use nfq_codel and an egress target of 25ms , with an overhead of 40 on a PPPoE connection.  I chose to watch the first 2 episodes of the 3 part third series of 'Sherlock', live on iPlayer, and these streamed correctly and uninterrupted for 90 minutes.  This was not previously possible.  (Quite whether they were up to the standard of previous episodes is another matter.)
> 
> I can watch iPlayer with little stutter whilst downloading Arch Linux by torrent, downloading other files at the same time.
> 
> So, for a relatively slow ADSL2+ line, the current build works well.

	Out of curiosity, to what percentage of the "current line rate" (you know the one reported by your modem) you shaped up- and downlink? And in case you have too much time on your hand, how does the same feel with an overhead of 10 (to see how bad an overhead underestimate would feel for a user), since you currently happen to have a quite sensitive subjective latency evaluation system set up :)…

Best Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> 
> On 06/01/14 03:29, Dave Taht wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Fred Stratton <fredstratton at imap.cc> wrote:
>>> Link Names:
>>> 
>>> For consistency, if ADSL is used as a portmanteau term, them VDSL should be
>>> used as the equivalent for VDSL and VDSL2.
>>> 
>>> CeroWRT has to decide whether it is an experimental build, or something that
>>> will eventually be used in production, so these decisions can be made
>>> consistently.
>> Well, what I was aiming for was for us to get the sqm scripts and gui
>> up to where they were better than the standard openwrt qos scripts and
>> then push them up to openwrt to where they could be more widely
>> deployed.
>> 
>> Aside from being able to dynamically assign priorities in the gui, we
>> are there.  Except that nfq_codel is currently getting better results
>> than fq_codel at low bandwidths, and I'm tempted to pour all of
>> simple.qos into C.
>> 
>> As for cero's future - certainly since all the snowden revelations
>> I've been going around saying that "friends don't let friends run
>> factory firmware". I would like a stable build of sqm and cerowrt to
>> emerge, and to then go off and work on improving wifi. Regrettably
>> what seems to be happening is more backwards than forwards on the
>> former, and ramping up on the ath9k and ath10k is taking more time
>> than I'd like, and it seems likely I'll be working on those primarily
>> on another platform and only eventually pushing the results out to
>> cero, mainline kernel
>> 
>> So it's still at the "keep plugging away" point for sqm, ipv6, cero in
>> general, with the stable release always just out of sight.
>> 
>> Tackling the ipv6 problem is next on my agenda on cero, and getting a
>> test suite going is next on my day job.
>> 
>>> I concur with your ADSL setup suggestion as default. I have been running the
>>> Sebastian Moeller ping script overnight to calculate ADSL overhead for the
>>> last several days. After several hours of curve fitting using Octave, an
>>> overhead result is displayed. This novel approach works well.
>> It would be nice to get to where we could autoconfigure a router using
>> tools like these with no human intervention. This includes bandwidth
>> estimation.
>> 
>>> The overhead for the particular setup I use was 40 for PPPoE, and 10 for
>>> PPPoA.
>>> 
>>> The default you suggest is a suitable starting point, I suggest.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 04/01/14 18:16, Rich Brown wrote:
>>>> QUESTION #5: I still don’t have any great answers for the Link Layer
>>>> Adaptation overhead descriptions and recommendations. In an earlier message,
>>>> (see
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/2013-December/001914.html
>>>> and following messages), Fred Stratton described the overheads carried by
>>>> various options, and Sebastian Moeller also gave some useful advice.
>>>> 
>>>> After looking at the options, I despair of giving people a clear
>>>> recommendation that would be optimal for their equipment. Consequently, I
>>>> believe the best we can do is come up with “good enough” recommendations
>>>> that are not wrong, and still give decent performance.
>>>> 
>>>> In this spirit, I have changed Draft #3 of the “Setting up SQM” page to
>>>> reflect this understanding. See
>>>> http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWrt_310
>>>> 
>>>>         ADSL/ATM link: Choose “ADSL/ATM", and set Per Packet Overhead to
>>>> 40
>>>>         VDSL2 link: Choose “VDSL”, and set Per Packet Overhead to 8
>>>>         Other kind of link (e.g., Cable, Fiber, Ethernet, other not
>>>> listed): Choose “None (default)”, and set Per Packet Overhead to 0
>>>> 
>>>> NB: I have changed the first menu choice to “ADSL/ATM” and the second to
>>>> “VDSL” in the description. I would ask that we change to GUI to reflect
>>>> those names as well. This makes it far easier/less confusing to talk about
>>>> the options.
>>>> 
>>>> As always, I welcome help in setting out clear recommendations that work
>>>> well for the vast majority of people who try CeroWrt. 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