<html><head></head><body><div class="gmail_quote">Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail"><br />On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:32 PM, Hector Ordorica <hechacker1@gmail.com> wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> I'm running 3.10.13-2 on a WNDR3800, and have used the suggested<br /> settings from the latest draft:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWrt_310">http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWrt_310</a><br /> <br /> I have a 30Mb down / 5Mb upload cable connection.<br /> <br /> With fq_codel, even undershooting network upload bandwidth by more<br /> than 95%, I'm seeing 500ms excessive upload buffering warnings from<br /> netalyzr. Download is ok at 130ms. I was previously on a 3.8 release<br /> and the same was true.<br /></blockquote><br />I have seen the same thing, although with different CeroWrt firmware. Netalyzr was reporting<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> 500 msec buffering in both directions.<br /></blockquote><br />However, I was simultaneously running a ping to Google during that Netalyzr run, and the<br />ping times started at ~55 msec before I started Netalyzr, and occasionally they would bump<br />up to 70 or 80 msec, but never the long times that Netzlyzr reported...<br /><br />I also reported this to the Netalyzr mailing list and they didn’t seem surprised. I’m not sure how to interpret this.<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> With pie (and default settings), the buffer warnings go away:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://n2.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca208a-32182-9424fd6e-5c5f-42d7-a9ea">http://n2.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca208a-32182-9424fd6e-5c5f-42d7-a9ea</a><br /> <br /> And the connection performs very well while torrenting and gaming.<br /> <br /> Should I try new code? Or can I tweak some variables and/or delay<br /> options in scripts for codel?<br /></blockquote><br />A couple thoughts:<br /><br />- There have been a bunch of changes between 3.10.13-2 and the current version (3.10.24-5, which seems pretty stable). You might try upgrading. (See the “Rough Notes” at the bottom of <a href="http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/CeroWrt_310_Release_Notes">http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/CeroWrt_310_Release_Notes</a> for the progression of changes).<br /><br />- Have you tried a more aggressive decrease to the link speeds on the AQM page (say, 85% instead of 95%)?<br /><br />- Can we get more corroboration from the list about the behavior of Netalyzer?<br /><br />Rich<br /><hr /><br />Cerowrt-devel mailing list<br />Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net<br /><a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel</a><br /></pre></blockquote></div><br clear="all">Hi Rich,<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>