Hi Dave,
> On Sep 11, 2018, at 10:30, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:20 AM Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2018, at 10:20, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What I "fixed" was on the apu2 with the burst/cburst change, I went
>>> from completely bottlenecked on one softirq to having 3 eat cpu, and
>>> from 400mbps to 900mbps. Now, that's a quad core and the e1000 (?)
>>> driver. The edgerouter X is a dual core, and you did see a small
>>> improvement in throughput, but I'd hoped for more.
>>
>> Well, assuming my intuitions about how burst/cburst ameliorate the issue, we
>> might simply have to say accept an additional 5ms delay/jitter to make it
>> perform better. It is basically the same batching approach that always helps
>> throughput of a cyclic process can not be repeated often enough, simply do
>> more per iteration...
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Sebastian
>>
>
> I buy what you are saying. I just wished it was a magic bullet for
> other than the apu2!
I guess I will have a look at exposing burst in the gui/config file to allow
easier testing. (I aim for defaulting to the automatic mode we currently use,
but will also look at potentially changing the calculations).
I wonder to what degree htb's quantum is at play again after that. If I
understand correctly quantum defines the granularity of dequeuing the different
priority tiers, so the higher quantum the higher the choppyness/lumpiness of
packets of different tiers, no? If this is true, shouldn't quantum also be
defined in milliseconds instead of size, so that we have a better handle on the
potential latency cost of doing so?
Best Regards
Sebastian
> --
>
> Dave Täht
> CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> http://www.teklibre.com
> Tel: 1-669-226-2619
_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
