After running those numbers I tried pure codel with ecn and with noecn just to verify results, against the 50 streams.
of note: I was unable to duplicate the initial 120ms spike I saw. Definately more tests and more rigorous testing is needed. All tests were against v13 of the code. codel ecn off, you get an initial spike of about 30ms, then it settles down in this range. 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=19 ttl=64 time=4.62 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=20 ttl=64 time=2.06 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=21 ttl=64 time=4.28 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=22 ttl=64 time=1.03 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=23 ttl=64 time=8.11 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=24 ttl=64 time=5.10 ms TCP_RR is: 112.69 With ecn: 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=46 ttl=64 time=10.6 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=47 ttl=64 time=5.66 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=48 ttl=64 time=11.8 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=49 ttl=64 time=3.68 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=50 ttl=64 time=10.2 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=51 ttl=64 time=12.8 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=52 ttl=64 time=2.62 ms 64 bytes from 149.20.63.18: icmp_req=53 ttl=64 time=7.86 ms TCP_RR: 102 All of these sets of results need more rigor attached. -- Dave Täht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 http://www.bufferbloat.net _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
