georgios the result you got was "fair", but you shoul have seen something closer to 900mbit than 400.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Georgios Amanakis <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Pete, > > I am trying to replicate the unfair behaviour you are seeing with > dual-{src,dst}host, albeit on different hardware and I am getting a fair > distribution. Hardware are Xeon E3-1220Lv2 (router), i3-3110M(Clients). All > running Archlinux, latest cake and patched iproute2-4.14.1, connected with > Gbit ethernet, TSO/GSO/GRO enabled. > > Qdisc setup: > ---------------- > Router: > qdisc cake 8003: dev ens4 root refcnt 2 bandwidth 900Mbit diffserv3 > dual-dsthost rtt 100.0ms raw > > Client A(kernel default): > qdisc fq_codel 0: dev eno2 root refcnt 2 limit 10240p flows 1024 quantum > 1514 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms memory_limit 32Mb ecn > > Client B (kernel default): > qdisc fq_codel 0: dev enp1s0 root refcnt 2 limit 10240p flows 1024 quantum > 1514 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms memory_limit 32Mb ecn > ---------------- > > > Cli: > ---------------- > Router: > netserver & > > Client A: > flent tcp_1down -H router > > Client B: > flent tcp_12down -H router > ---------------- > > > Results: > ---------------- > Router: > qdisc cake 8003: root refcnt 2 bandwidth 900Mbit diffserv3 dual-dsthost rtt > 100.0ms raw > Sent 7126680117 bytes 4725904 pkt (dropped 10, overlimits 4439745 requeues > 0) > backlog 0b 0p requeues 0 > memory used: 1224872b of 15140Kb > capacity estimate: 900Mbit > Bulk Best Effort Voice > thresh 56250Kbit 900Mbit 225Mbit > target 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms > interval 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms > pk_delay 14us 751us 7us > av_delay 2us 642us 1us > sp_delay 1us 1us 1us > pkts 109948 4601651 14315 > bytes 160183242 6964893773 1618242 > way_inds 0 21009 0 > way_miss 160 188 5 > way_cols 0 0 0 > drops 0 10 0 > marks 0 0 0 > ack_drop 0 0 0 > sp_flows 0 1 1 > bk_flows 1 0 0 > un_flows 0 0 0 > max_len 7570 68130 1022 > > > Client A: > avg median # data pts > Ping (ms) ICMP : 0.11 0.08 ms 350 > TCP download : 443.65 430.38 Mbits/s 301 > > > Client B: > avg median # data pts > Ping (ms) ICMP : 0.09 0.06 ms 350 > TCP download avg : 37.03 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download sum : 444.35 430.40 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::1 : 37.00 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::10 : 37.01 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::11 : 37.02 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::12 : 37.00 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::2 : 37.03 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::3 : 36.99 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::4 : 37.03 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::5 : 37.07 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::6 : 37.00 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::7 : 37.12 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::8 : 37.05 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > TCP download::9 : 37.03 35.87 Mbits/s 301 > ---------------- > > Does this suggest that it is indeed a problem of an underpowered CPU in your > case? > > George > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Pete Heist <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 27, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> It's not at all obvious how we'd detect that. Packets are staying in the >> queue for less time than the codel target, which is exactly what you'd get >> if you weren't saturated at all. >> >> That makes complete sense when you put it that way. Cake has no way of >> knowing why the input rate is lower than expected, even if it’s part of the >> cause. >> >> I don’t think flent can know this either. It can’t easily know the cause >> for its total output to be lower than expected. >> >> All I know is, this is a common problem in deployments, particularly on >> low-end hardware like ER-Xs, that can be tricky for users to figure out. >> >> I don’t even think monitoring CPU in general would work. The CPU could be >> high because it’s doing other calculations, but there’s still enough for >> cake at a low rate, and there’s no need to warn in that case. I’d be >> interested in any ideas on how to know this is happening in the system as a >> whole. So far, there are just various clues that one needs to piece together >> (no or few drops or marks, less total throughput that expected, high cpu >> without other external usage, etc). Then it needs to be proven with a test. >> >> Anyway thanks, your clue was what I needed! I need to remember to review >> the qdisc stats when something unexpected happens. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cake mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake > -- Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619 _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
