[Cerowrt-devel] Correct syntax for cake commands and atm issues.

[Alan Jenkins]

I'm glad to hear there's a working version (even if it's not in the 
current build :).

Do you have measurable improvements with overhead configured (v.s. 
unconfigured)?

I've used netperfrunner from CeroWrtScripts, e.g.

sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p $ISP_ROUTER

I believe accounting for overhead helps on this two-way test, because a) 
it saturates the uplink b) about half that bandwidth is tiny ack packets 
(depending on bandwidth asymmetry).  And small packets have 
proportionally high overhead.

(But it seems to only make a small difference for me, which always 
surprises Seb).

Alan

On 10/07/15 15:52, Fred Stratton wrote:
>
> You are absolutely correct.
>
> I tried both a numeric overhead value, and alternatively 'pppoe-vcmux'
> and 'ether-fcs' in the build I crafted based on r46006, which is lupin
> undeclared version 2. Everything works as stated.
>
> On lupin undeclared version 4, the current release based on r46117, the
> values were not recognised.
>
> Thank you.
>
> I had cake running on a Lantiq ADSL gateway running the same r46006
> build. Unfortunately this was bricked by attempts to get homenet
> working, so I have nothing to report about gateway usage at present.
>
>
>
> On 10/07/15 13:57, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>
>> You're already using correct syntax - I've written it to be quite
>> lenient and use sensible defaults for missing information. There are
>> several sets of keywords and parameters which are mutually orthogonal,
>> and don't depend on each other, so "besteffort" has nothing to do with
>> "overhead" or "atm".
>>
>> What's probably happening is that you're using a slightly old version
>> of the cake kernel module which lacks the overhead parameter entirely,
>> but a more up to date tc which does support it. We've seen this
>> combination crop up ourselves recently.
>>
>> - Jonathan Morton
>>
>