On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 9:26 AM Justin Kilpatrick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 12:01:54AM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: > > I get that bandwidth figure a lot for wireguard. I care about latency > > far, far more under a full bidirectional load. Having got base wifi so > > much better, and the edge connections sqm-scripts massively better, I > > am wondering if wireguard got on the stick yet? > > > > I wrote about this problem in an early version of wireguard here: > > http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/wireguard/ > > > > As of kernel 4.4 (?) ipsec does take advantage of the fq_codel hash. > > the before latency was 100+ms in the tunnel for voip, 2ms after. > > I can confirm that fq_codel works with Wireguard tunnels just fine. The > latency added by a tunneled hop is around 1-2ms.
that is not a possible result. The classic simplest bufferbloat test is start a ping, then do a big 60 sec upload or download from a server on the other side of that link. Over wifi that's a minimum resulting delay of 10ms, closer to 20, nowadays. about 2 over cake on ethernet. but: Over the wireguard tunnel I tested 2 years or so back, 150ms induced delay. from tcp on an openwrt router, it's probable that the pacing_rate bug still exists which means it's tcp can't flood the link - which is a good thing in this case but... users aren't on the routers. users don't just ping or download or upload once at a time. > Here's some iperf data, but not as latency focused as you would probably like. nope. also udp fragmenting is iperf's default mode. > https://forum.altheamesh.com/t/althea-performance/44/3 > > _______________________________________________ > Babel-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users -- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740 _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
