On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 10:47 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:04:37PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: > > I'm really looking forward to trying them out and reading the upcoming > > paper. > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/671069/ > > As a random data point, I tried a single flow from my main server in .no > to my backup server in .nl and compared CUBIC (with sch_fq) to BBR (naturally > also in sch_fq) on the sender side. The results were quite consistent across > runs: > > - BBR ramped up much quicker than CUBIC. > - BBR gave ~10% higher max speed than CUBIC (~680 Mbit/sec on a gigabit > link). > - CUBIC wavered a bit up and down (~100 Mbit/sec) from the max; BBR stayed > put (perhaps 2 Mbit/sec difference) the entire time. > > http://pastebin.com/0XQaJvD9 for a typical log. I don't have any fancy > graphs, sorry :-) > > /* Steinar */
Hi Steinar Could you provide /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_rmem and /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_wmem values on your server ? What is the rtt between your two hosts ? Thanks _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
