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

[Fred Stratton]

I have yet to undertake formal testing.

I moved from using a Buffalo WMBR-G300 running Barrier Breaker to a 
bridged device when I broke the former tying to install Homenet.

I omitted to recraft the cake script I was using to incorporate the 
correct interface, now pppoe-wan, and was unaware of the error until 
today, a fortnight later.

I am therefore not expecting significant improvements.

On 10/07/15 16:19, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>
>