IThe UK consensus fudge factor has always been 85 per cent of the rate
achieved, not 95 or 99 per cent.
Devices express 2 values: the sync rate - or 'maximum rate attainable' -
and the dynamic value of 'current rate'.
As the sync rate is fairly stable for any given installation - ADSL or
Fibre - this could be used as a starting value. decremented by the
traditional 15 per cent of 'overhead'. and the 85 per cent fudge factor
applied to that.
Fibre - FTTC - connections can suffer quite large download speed
fluctuations over the 200 - 500 metre link to the MSAN. This phenomenon
is not confined to ADSL links.
An alternative speed test is something like this
http://download.bethere.co.uk/downloadMeter.html
which, as Be has been bought by Sky, may not exist after the end of
April 2014.
* /[What is the proper description here?]/If you use PPPoE (but not
over ADSL/DSL link), PPPoATM, or bridging that isn’t Ethernet, you
should choose/[what?]/and set the Per-packet Overhead to/[what?]/
//For a PPPoA service, the PPPoA link is treated as PPPoE on the second
device, here running ceroWRT.
The packet overhead values are written in the dubious man page for
tc_stab. Sebastian has a potential alternative method of formal calculation.
TYPICAL OVERHEADS
The following values are typical for different adsl scenarios
(based on
[1] and [2]):
LLC based:
PPPoA - 14 (PPP - 2, ATM - 12)
PPPoE - 40+ (PPPoE - 8, ATM - 18, ethernet 14, possibly FCS
- 4+padding)
Bridged - 32 (ATM - 18, ethernet 14, possibly FCS - 4+padding)
IPoA - 16 (ATM - 16)
VC Mux based:
PPPoA - 10 (PPP - 2, ATM - 8)
PPPoE - 32+ (PPPoE - 8, ATM - 10, ethernet 14, possibly FCS
- 4+padding)
Bridged - 24+ (ATM - 10, ethernet 14, possibly FCS - 4+padding)
IPoA - 8 (ATM - 8)
For VC Mux based PPPoA, I am currently using an overhead of 18 for the
PPPoE setting in ceroWRT.
Were I to use a single directly connected gateway, I would input a
suitable value for PPPoA in that openWRT firmware. In theory, I might
need to use a negative value, bmt the current kernel does not support that.
I have used many different arbitrary values for overhead. All appear to
have little effect.
As I understand it, the current recommendation is to use tc_stab in
preference to htb_private. I do not know the basis for this value judgement.
On 28/12/13 10:01, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
Hi Rich,
great! A few comments:
Basic Settings:
[Is 95% the right fudge factor?] I think that ideally, if we get can precisely
measure the useable link rate even 99% of that should work out well, to keep
the queue in our device. I assume that due to the difficulties in measuring and
accounting for the link properties as link layer and overhead people typically
rely on setting the shaped rate a bit lower than required to
stochastically/empirically account for the link properties. I predict that if
we get a correct description of the link properties to the shaper we should be
fine with 95% shaping. Note though, it is not trivial on an adel link to get
the actually useable bit rate from the modem so 95% of what can be deduced from
the modem or the ISP's invoice might be a decent proxy…
[Do we have a recommendation for an easy way to tell if it's working? Perhaps a
link to a new Quick Test for Bufferbloat page. ] The linked page looks like a
decent probe for buffer bloat.
Basic Settings - the details...
CeroWrt is designed to manage the queues of packets waiting to be sent across
the slowest (bottleneck) link, which is usually your connection to the Internet.
I think we can only actually control the first link to the ISP, which
often happens to be the bottleneck. At a typical DSLAM (xDSL head end station)
the cumulative sold bandwidth to the customers is larger than the back bone
connection (which is called over-subscription and is almost guaranteed to be
the case in every DSLAM) which typically is not a problem, as typically people
do not use their internet that much. My point being we can not really control
congestion in the DSLAM's uplink (as we have no idea what the reserved rate per
customer is in the worst case, if there is any).
CeroWrt can automatically adapt to network conditions to improve the
delay/latency of data without any settings.
Does this describe the default fq_codels on each interface (except
fib?)?
However, it can do a better job if it knows more about the actual link speeds
available. You can adjust this setting by entering link speeds that are a few
percent below the actual speeds.
Note: it can be difficult to get an accurate measurement of the link speeds.
The speed advertised by your provider is a starting point, but your experience
often won't meet their published specs. You can also use a speed test program
or web site like http://speedtest.net to estimate actual operating speeds.
While this approach is commonly recommended on the internet, I do not
believe that it is that useful. Between a user and the speediest site there are a
number of potential congestion points that can affect (reduce) the throughput,
like bad peering. Now that said the sppedtets will report something <= the
actual link speed and hence be conservative (interactivity stays great at 90% of
link rate as well as 80% so underestimating the bandwidth within reason does not
affect the latency gains from traffic shaping it just sacrifices a bit more
bandwidth; and given the difficulty to actually measure the actually attainable
bandwidth might have been effectively a decent recommendation even though the
theory of it seems flawed)
Be sure to make your measurement when network is quiet, and others in your home
aren’t generating traffic.
This is great advise.
I would love to comment further, but after reloading
http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWrt_310
just returns a blank page and I can not get back to the page as of yesterday
evening… I will have a look later to see whether the page resurfaces…
Best
Sebastian
On Dec 27, 2013, at 23:09 , Rich Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
You are a very good writer and I am on a tablet.
Thanks!
Ill take a pass at the wiki tomorrow.
The shaper does up and down was my first thought...
Everyone else… Don’t let Dave hog all the fun! Read the tech note and give
feedback!
Rich
On Dec 27, 2013 10:48 AM, "Rich Brown" <[email protected]> wrote:
I updated the page to reflect the 3.10.24-8 build, and its new GUI pages.
http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWrt_310
There are still lots of open questions. Comments, please.
Rich
_______________________________________________
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
