Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> writes: > For me, it shows that FQ_CODEL indeed affects TCP performance > negatively for long links, however it looks like the impact is only > about 20-30%.
As far as I can tell, fq_codel's throughput is about 10% lower on 100mbit in one direction, while being higher in the other. For 10mbit fq_codel shows higher throughput throughout? > What's stranger is that latency only goes up to around 230ms from its > 200ms "floor" with FIFO, I had expected a bigger increase in buffering > with FIFO. Have you done any TCP tuning? Not apart from what's in mainline (3.9.9 kernel). The latency-inducing box is after the bottleneck, though, so perhaps it has something to do with that? Some interaction between netem and the ethernet link? > Would it be easy for you to do tests with the streams that "loads up > the link" being 200ms RTT, and the realtime flows only having 30-40ms > RTT, simulating downloads from a high RTT server and doing interactive > things to a more local web server. Not on my current setup, sorry. Also, I only did these tests because I happened to be at my lab anyway yesterday. Not going back again for a while, so further tests are out for the time being, I'm afraid... -Toke
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
