[Cerowrt-devel] archer c7 v2, policing, hostapd, test openwrt build

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dave,


On Mar 24, 2015, at 01:05 , Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:

> this is with cero or last weekend's build?

	Oops, forgot to mention, this is with cerowrt 3.10.50-1, I only have one router and have not dared to switch to the new shiny (unstable?) thing yet. The test was going over se00 from a machine that should be able to deliver >= 100Mbps symmetric.

Best Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan, hi List,
>> 
>> 
>> So I got around to a bit of rrul testing of the dual egress idea to asses the cost of IFB, but the results are complicated (so most likely I screwed up). On an wndr3700v2 on a 100Mbps/40Mbps link I get the following (excuse the two images either the plot is intelligble or the legend...):
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Only in case of shaping the total bandwidth to the ~70Mbps this router can barely do can I see an effect of the dual egress instead of the IFB based ingress shaper. So column 7 (ipv4) and column 8 (ipv6) are larger than columns 9 (ipv4) and 10 (ipv6) showing that dual egress instead of egress and ingress effective upload increases by < 10 Mbps (while download and latency stay unaffected). That is not bad, but also does not look like the IFB is the cost driver in sqm-scripts, or does it? Also as a corollary of the data I would say, my old interpretation that we hit a limit at ~70Mbps combined traffic might not be correct in that ingress and egress might carry slightly different costs, but then thins difference is not going to make a wndr punch way above its weight…
>> 
>> Best Regards
>>        Sebastian
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 17:09 , Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>> 
>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 14:43 , Jonathan Morton <chromatix99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 23 Mar, 2015, at 08:09, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> It obviously degrade local performance of se00 and hence be not a true solution unless one is happy to fully dedicate a box as shaper ;)
>>>> 
>>>> Dedicating a box as a router/shaper isn’t so much of a problem, but shaping traffic between wired and wireless - and sharing the incoming WAN bandwidth between them, too - is.  outer
>>> 
>>>      Exactly the sentiment I had, but less terse and actually understandable ;)
>>> 
>>>> It’s a valid test, though, for this particular purpose.
>>> 
>>>      Once I get around to test it, I should b able to share some numbers…
>>> 
>>> Best Regards
>>>      Sebastian
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - Jonathan Morton
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Täht
> Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again!
> 
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb