> On Nov 22, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:37 AM, Pete Heist <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ok, at least a little crude testing with sar: >> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LKoq5NaswuHm9H1atXoZA1AhNDg6L4UYS3Pn5lCsb1I/edit#gid=0 >> >> ~10% less cake CPU at GigE in this case? > > Divides do hurt, particularly if you can't do them out of order. But > that seems like a lot.
Hrm, I tried a second test to make sure fairness still works (it does) but this time got a slight _negative_ result (rrul_be fair tab). So this calls into question whether or not my testing method is very good, and also whether or not the change actually helps much. This time I used "cake unlimited besteffort dual-srchost overhead 64 mpu 84” (overheads from Sebastian, just rely on bql). I might try again with 950mbit limiting, and ‘perf’ instead. Also I noted that the ‘lan’ keyword seemed to adversely affect host fairness, so I stopped using it. I’ll address that separately when there’s time. >> What’s a better tool for timing >> kernel module functions? > > Use "perf" > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perf_(Linux) Ok, will see if I can give it a try. _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
