Hi Dave,
On Mar 24, 2015, at 01:05 , Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> this is with cero or last weekend's build?
Oops, forgot to mention, this is with cerowrt 3.10.50-1, I only have
one router and have not dared to switch to the new shiny (unstable?) thing yet.
The test was going over se00 from a machine that should be able to deliver >=
100Mbps symmetric.
Best Regards
Sebastian
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan, hi List,
>>
>>
>> So I got around to a bit of rrul testing of the dual egress idea to asses
>> the cost of IFB, but the results are complicated (so most likely I screwed
>> up). On an wndr3700v2 on a 100Mbps/40Mbps link I get the following (excuse
>> the two images either the plot is intelligble or the legend...):
>>
>>
>>
>> Only in case of shaping the total bandwidth to the ~70Mbps this router can
>> barely do can I see an effect of the dual egress instead of the IFB based
>> ingress shaper. So column 7 (ipv4) and column 8 (ipv6) are larger than
>> columns 9 (ipv4) and 10 (ipv6) showing that dual egress instead of egress
>> and ingress effective upload increases by < 10 Mbps (while download and
>> latency stay unaffected). That is not bad, but also does not look like the
>> IFB is the cost driver in sqm-scripts, or does it? Also as a corollary of
>> the data I would say, my old interpretation that we hit a limit at ~70Mbps
>> combined traffic might not be correct in that ingress and egress might carry
>> slightly different costs, but then thins difference is not going to make a
>> wndr punch way above its weight…
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 17:09 , Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 14:43 , Jonathan Morton <chromati...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 23 Mar, 2015, at 08:09, Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It obviously degrade local performance of se00 and hence be not a true
>>>>> solution unless one is happy to fully dedicate a box as shaper ;)
>>>>
>>>> Dedicating a box as a router/shaper isn’t so much of a problem, but
>>>> shaping traffic between wired and wireless - and sharing the incoming WAN
>>>> bandwidth between them, too - is. outer
>>>
>>> Exactly the sentiment I had, but less terse and actually
>>> understandable ;)
>>>
>>>> It’s a valid test, though, for this particular purpose.
>>>
>>> Once I get around to test it, I should b able to share some numbers…
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> Sebastian
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Jonathan Morton
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Täht
> Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again!
>
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
