[Cerowrt-devel] Torrents are too fast

Fri Nov 21 07:14:14 EST 2014

Hi Dane,

On Nov 21, 2014, at 12:51 , Dane Medic <dm70dm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> correct, I've left egress on 4000 (I thought I should test only ingress first),

	A reasonable approach, I just predict that it will only work well once you have shapers on bothe ingress and egress configured correctly.

> but when I did the test with youtube + torrent transfer, I've had set upload to very small number (I think 10 kbytes/s).

	I am confused, you restricted the egress speed to 10 Kbps and wonder why performance was less than satisfactory? :) I you just want to be sure that you are not limited by bloated buffers restricting the bandwidth to 50% of link rates (or even rougher of the transfer estates of betterspeedtest.sh) should be a good starting point. At that rate you will only be able to send 6.66666666667 full sized packets per second each taking 150 ms.

> 
> Yes I have DSL line (VDSL2 as I've read ISP info),

	Hard to believe that any ISP will give you VDSL2 at around 4M/512K as at that speed you are either so far away from the DSLAM that VDSL2 is not any better than ADSL, probably worse, or you link is faster and your ISP throttles your bandwidth due to contract. But you could run the attached script overnight from a linux or macosx machine to test whether your link used ATM encapsulation. A link using ATM will really improve by specifying the correct link layer adjustments and overhead, VDSL2 not so much. If you run this script I am happy to help you analyze it to figure out whether your link uses ATM or not. Oh by the way most ISP modems/routers have a web page that offers (technical)  information about the link it would be great if you could find and post that.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ping_sweeper7.sh
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4042 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20141121/c11d5d15/attachment-0002.obj>
-------------- next part --------------

> I'll try to set the linklayer option on ethernet with overhead of 8, like it says on http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_SQM_for_CeroWrt_310
> I have linux machine so I'll install netperf-wrapper and test things

	If you really have a VDSL2 link the overhead will not make much of a difference.

Best Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> sqm configuration:
> 
> root at cerowrt:~# uci show sqm
> sqm.ge00=queue
> sqm.ge00.interface=ge00
> sqm.ge00.qdisc=fq_codel
> sqm.ge00.script=simple.qos
> sqm.ge00.qdisc_advanced=1
> sqm.ge00.ingress_ecn=ECN
> sqm.ge00.egress_ecn=NOECN
> sqm.ge00.qdisc_really_really_advanced=1
> sqm.ge00.itarget=auto
> sqm.ge00.etarget=auto
> sqm.ge00.linklayer=none
> sqm.ge00.download=3100
> sqm.ge00.upload=4000

	You should probably set this to 480 or 400 to be on the save side, for you initial tests (judged from the speed tests) and later try to see how far up you can push this without destroying latency under load...

> sqm.ge00.enabled=1
> 
> Thank you guys,
> Dane
> 
> 2014-11-21 12:16 GMT+01:00 Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de>:
> Hi Dane,
> 
> 
> On Nov 20, 2014, at 15:13 , Dane Medic <dm70dm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > dpreed, thank you for response. I'm already using fq_codel with cerowrt and I don't think it does what I want (or maybe I want too much :)
> >
> > So the steps I've made:
> > flashed wndr3700v2 with cerowrt 3.10.50-1 then I've measured:
> >
> > root at cerowrt:/usr/lib/CeroWrtScripts# sh betterspeedtest.sh -p wlan-si.net -t 120
> > 2014-11-20 12:18:34 Testing against netperf.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 5 simultaneous sessions while pinging wlan-si.net (120 seconds in each direction)
> > .........................................................................................................................
> >  Download:  3.78 Mbps
> >   Latency: (in msec, 119 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> >       Min: 13.077
> >     10pct: 251.522
> >    Median: 317.851
> >       Avg: 308.497
> >     90pct: 371.033
> >       Max: 376.132
> > ............................................................................................................................
> >    Upload:  0.48 Mbps
> >   Latency: (in msec, 103 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> >       Min: 12.278
> >     10pct: 12.727
> >    Median: 18.359
> >       Avg: 23.256
> >     90pct: 33.971
> >       Max: 180.303
> >
> > Then I've put these commands:
> >
> > uci set sqm.ge00.enabled=1
> > uci set sqm.ge00.download=3200
> > uci set sqm.ge00.qdisc=nfq_codel
> > uci commit sqm
> > reboot
> >
> > And another measure:
> >
> > root at cerowrt:/usr/lib/CeroWrtScripts# sh betterspeedtest.sh -p wlan-si.net -t 120
> > 2014-11-20 12:49:05 Testing against netperf.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 5 simultaneous sessions while pinging wlan-si.net (120 seconds in each direction)
> > .........................................................................................................................
> >  Download:  2.74 Mbps
> >   Latency: (in msec, 121 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> >       Min: 12.210
> >     10pct: 13.002
> >    Median: 15.077
> >       Avg: 15.095
> >     90pct: 16.968
> >       Max: 18.599
> > .............................................................................................................................
> >    Upload:  0.49 Mbps
> >   Latency: (in msec, 101 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
> >       Min: 12.255
> >     10pct: 12.684
> >    Median: 16.679
> >       Avg: 23.100
> >     90pct: 34.019
> >       Max: 170.173
> >
> > The tests doesn't look bad, but the problem is I watch a video clip on youtube and my sister starts torrent client, I can't watch anymore.
> 
>         Could you post the content of /etc/config/sqm from after activating SQM please. It looks like you did not activate shaping on egress (its not in the “ici set *” above and the upload statistics look identical to the first unshaped example). You really need to control the buffer in both directions to get rid of nasty latency spikes (especially with torrents that I assume  will try to use both directions maximally if left to their own devices). Also 4M/512K sounds like a DSL link, if so you might find the link layer adjustments helpful (if there are question what to fill in just ask). Also if you have a linux or macosx computer available I would recommend to install netperf-wrapper and use the RRUL test to simultaneously load down- and up-link (or alternatively netperfrunner.sh) as this will show bloated buffers more clearly than the individual tests for each direction as performed by betterspeedtest.sh.
> 
> Best Regards
>         Sebastian
> 
> 
> >
> > Cheers
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> > Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> 
> 