On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Steinar H. Gunderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:47:26AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >> 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: > > Another datapoint: A friend of mine had a different, worse path (of about 40 > ms) > and tested with iperf. > > CUBIC delivered 20.1 Mbit/sec (highly varying). BBR delivered 485 Mbit/sec.
I mostly live in a world (wifi) where loss is uncommon, unless forced on it with a AQM. At the moment my biggest beef with BBR is that it ignores ECN entirely (and yet negotiates it). BBR is then so efficient at using up all the pipe that a single queued aqm "marks madly" and everything else eventually starves. Watch "ping" fade out here... http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/bbr-comprehensive/bbr_ecn_eventually_starving_ping.png somewhat conversely in fq_codel, this means that it ignores codel's marking attempts entirely and BBR retains it's own dynamics, (while the non-BBR flows are fine) which is kind of neat to watch. > /* Steinar */ > -- > Homepage: https://www.sesse.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat -- Dave Täht Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! http://blog.cerowrt.org _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
