On 14 Aug 2013, at 12:42, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Fred, > > > On Aug 13, 2013, at 21:40 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (apologies for wrecking the list, and introducing email addresses in error) >> >> >> Begin forwarded message >>> On 13 Aug 2013, at 19:53, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> H Fred >>>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 17:28 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have been experimenting with the two sets of modified sets of scripts >>>>> and AQM panels. Thank you for constructing them. >>>> >>>> Thanks for testing... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> To mention the string ''for ATM choose' is repeated erroneously in the >>>>> extended panel. >>>> >>>> Fixed… I will try to test whether it actually works before sending the >>>> next version... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The scripts work. >>>>> >>>>> The link layer giving best results is ethernet. >>>> >>>> What and how did you measure? Using "use HTB's private mechanism for >>>> linklayer and overhead" or "Use tc's stab mechanism for linklayer and >>>> overhead"? A little browsing of the kernel source makes me believe that >>>> the HTB version is fully busted and will not do anything at all (so I >>>> would have imagined adel atm and ethernet to behave the same). I am >>>> thinking about how to test whether a link layer adjustment works or not. >>> >>> Ein Fehler. I had both chosen. They are mutually exclusive options. 2 days >>> of testing lost. Shall restart. > > I will try to fix the AQM scripts to make these two mutually exclusive. > That said, the HTB internal implementation does not seem to work at all, so > enabling both should be equivalent to just enabling stab. In my quick and > dirty testing (using netsurf-wrapper, which I got working on macosx 10.8) it > looks like activating both actually should work. BTW I am looking for an open > netsurf server in Europe anybody any ideas? I am actually getting better results from htb than td-stab at present. > > >>>> >>>> >>>>> Pinging severs whilst running Netalyzr has no effect. >>>> >>>> Not being a native english speaker cloud you be more explicit, please. >>>> Was the ping RTT affected by the concurrent netalyzr run (especially up- >>>> and download testing)? Did you get netsurf-wrapper to work on ubuntu? >>> >>> You did not understand because I explained what I did, and I did the wrong >>> thing. >>> >>> Not done properly. Will retry. Netsurf-wrapper will not compile. I am going >>> to move to a more recent version of Ubuntu. > > Interesting, I managed to install it under 64bit Ubuntu 12.04 in a > virtual machine, using the packages Toke supplied. I just added > http://archive.tohojo.dk/ to "Software Sources" in "Update Manager" than I > could use the "Synaptic Package Manager" to install netperf and > netperf-wrapper from Toke's repository; so I guess no ned to compile > anything. (Under maces however installing netsurf-wrapper was slightly more > involved as the recommended way via pip did not work, so I had to download > the netperf-wrapper repository from https://github.com/tohojo/netperf-wrapper > and the cd into the downloaded directory and issue "sudo python2.7 ./setup.py > install" there and I had to symplink python2.7 to python2, but after that it > also worked). > Just as a illustration what to expect, please find attached the RRUL > results with stab based AQM und without any AQM; clearly fq_codel improves > the ping RTTs a lot, so AQM works. Alas, I did not repeat this test with > shaping enabled but no link layer adjustments or with the HTB link layer > adjustments, so can not really tell, whether RRUL is sensitive enough to show > the effects of link layer adjustments or not (my bet is on not as RRUL in my > understanding uses large packets while the ATM quantization effects are > strongest for small packets). I might try to do this tonight or when I get > around to do it… > I would be really curious to see such plots from your setup for > comparison. Will try your suggestion for Ubuntu. > > <figure_5.png><figure_6_like_5_noAQM.png> > > > >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The tone buckets of the phone signal are translated into ATM packets by >>>>> the DSP in the 2 Wire 2700. I have no idea what this closed source BSD >>>>> implementation does to the packets before they are sent to CeroWRT. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am using 3.10.2-1, as I cannot get the latest version to install with >>>>> sys upgrade. >>> >>> I was trying 3.10.5-1 > > Ah, good, I might try 3.10.6-1 then directly in tftp mode. Does anyone > know how much time I have between releasing the reset button and starting the > tftp transfer? > sys upgrade does not work with the latest build. If you have to press the recovery button during restart, I cannot se tftp. Does anyone know of programmatic alternatives? > Best > Sebastian > > >>> >>> DT has taken to stealth with his releases. >>> >>>> >>>> So 3.10.6-1 fails with sysupgrade? >>>> >>>> best >>>> Sebastian >>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >
_______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
