On 14 Aug 2013, at 15:18, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Fred,
> 
> 
> On Aug 14, 2013, at 15:37 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 14 Aug 2013, at 14:31, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Fred,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 14, 2013, at 14:01 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>     Then I will have to test an compare the RRUL performance for 
>>> stab-linklayeradjustments (loa), htb-lla, no-lla, no-shaping at all, at 50% 
>>> of link rate and at say 80% of link rate and see which performs best. Alas 
>>> I need a closer netperf 2.6.0 net server binary than the ones in NY and CA. 
>>> So far I am failing to find a windows binary I could run on one of the 
>>> machines in the lab…
>>>     How do you measure currently? I would love to run the same tests to 
>>> figure out what is up with the two loa methods.
>> 
>> Netalyzr, for all its deficiencies.
> 
>       Ah, so you are basically testing the maximum depth of the ge00 uplink 
> fq_codels, which is set at 600 at the moment. You could test this by changing 
> the value in egress() if simple.qos
> 
> $TC qdisc add dev $IFACE parent 1:11 handle 110: $QDISC limit 600 $NOECN 
> `get_quantum 300` `get_flows ${PRIO_RATE}`
> $TC qdisc add dev $IFACE parent 1:12 handle 120: $QDISC limit 600 $NOECN 
> `get_quantum 300` `get_flows ${BE_RATE}`
> $TC qdisc add dev $IFACE parent 1:13 handle 130: $QDISC limit 600 $NOECN 
> `get_quantum 300` `get_flows ${BK_RATE}`
> 
> to 
> 
> $TC qdisc add dev $IFACE parent 1:11 handle 110: $QDISC limit 300 $NOECN 
> `get_quantum 300` `get_flows ${PRIO_RATE}`
> $TC qdisc add dev $IFACE parent 1:12 handle 120: $QDISC limit 300 $NOECN 
> `get_quantum 300` `get_flows ${BE_RATE}`
> $TC qdisc add dev $IFACE parent 1:13 handle 130: $QDISC limit 300 $NOECN 
> `get_quantum 300` `get_flows ${BK_RATE}`
> 
> and the reported buffering will get lower… I assume that netalyzr only 
> complains about the uplink and the downlink is okay? Setting limit higher 
> will make netalyzr more unhappy (up to a certain number over which netalyzr 
> will get happy again). I assume netalyzr simply uses an inelastic UDP load of 
> a fixed bandwidth tries to fill buffers until dropping occurs and deduces the 
> size of the buffer from the amount of data that passed before dropping, if 
> all fits into the buffer nothing needs dropping and hence netalyzr should be 
> happy even though the buffers just got more bloated. 
> 
>       You could also try http://loki10.mpi-sws.mpg.de/bb/bb.php for that kind 
> of a test which IIRC uses higher bandwidth probes.
> 
> 
> But we have been there in the past, see 
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/2012-August/000418.html 
> the critical test is to see whether a concurrent ping or ssh session stays 
> responsive in spite of the netalyzr probe… And interestingly in the old 
> e-mail cited, no AQM defaulted to 500ms uplink delay, the cable modems buffer 
> was simply not enormously oversized to begin with… 
> 
>       Could you share the netalyzr numbers for no AQM, AQM with HTB and AQM 
> with stab, in any way? And in case you can run this how do the ping 
> statistics (example:
> 
> --- www.heise.de ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 5.813/6.120/6.619/0.213 ms
> 
> of a concurrent "ping -c 1000 IPADDRESS.OF.NEAREST>ISPHOST" look, especially 
> the max and stddev values could be interesting…

There will be a delay.

have installed netsurf-wrapper etc, but am having difficulty with the switches.


> 
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>> 
>>>     Ah, then is is going to be TFTP I guess. What do you mean by "If you 
>>> have to press the recovery button during restart, I cannot se tftp"? Does 
>>> the "reboot-with-reset-button-pressed" not work after a failed sys upgrade?
>> 
>> I  cannot press the reset button whilst restart in the router. The procedure 
>> works, but I cannot do it.
> 
>       Ah, good, then I will risk an upgrade. While needing a stool or ladder 
> I should be able to actually press the button during restart…

The procedure SHOULD work. I have not tested it.
> 
>> I am looking for an alternative. There will be a programmatic approach to 
>> enter kernel mode.
> 
> Best Regards
>       Sebastian
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> Best Regards
>>>     Sebastian
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Reply via email to