Hi Fred,
On Jul 10, 2015, at 22:07 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> wrote:
> replaced /usr/lib/sqm as ordered
Thanks.
>
> cat /etc/config/sqm
>
> config queue 'eth1'
> option qdisc_advanced '0'
> option enabled '1'
> option interface 'pppoe-wan'
> option upload '850'
> option qdisc 'cake'
> option linklayer 'atm'
> option overhead '40'
> option download '8500'
> option script 'simple.qos'
> option linklayer_advanced '1'
> option tcMTU '2047'
> option tcTSIZE '128'
> option tcMPU '0'
> option linklayer_adaptation_mechanism ‘cake'
Looks reasonable.
>
> root@OpenWrt:~# tc -s qdisc show
> qdisc fq_codel 0: dev eth0 root refcnt 2 limit 1024p flows 1024 quantum 300
> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn
> Sent 5904206 bytes 10771 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 1)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 1
> maxpacket 256 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0
> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0
> qdisc fq_codel 0: dev eth1 root refcnt 2 limit 1024p flows 1024 quantum 300
> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn
> Sent 903154 bytes 7941 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 2)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 2
> maxpacket 1322 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 1 ecn_mark 0
> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0
> qdisc mq 0: dev wlan0 root
> Sent 198495 bytes 816 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> qdisc fq_codel 0: dev wlan0 parent :1 limit 1024p flows 1024 quantum 300
> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn
> Sent 3709 bytes 19 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> maxpacket 256 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0
> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0
> qdisc fq_codel 0: dev wlan0 parent :2 limit 1024p flows 1024 quantum 300
> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn
> Sent 112 bytes 1 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> maxpacket 256 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0
> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0
> qdisc fq_codel 0: dev wlan0 parent :3 limit 1024p flows 1024 quantum 300
> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn
> Sent 194674 bytes 796 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> maxpacket 256 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0
> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0
> qdisc fq_codel 0: dev wlan0 parent :4 limit 1024p flows 1024 quantum 300
> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn
> Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> maxpacket 256 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0
> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0
> qdisc mq 0: dev wlan1 root
> Sent 53249 bytes 323 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> qdisc fq_codel 0: dev wlan1 parent :1 limit 1024p flows 1024 quantum 300
> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn
> Sent 1337 bytes 9 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> maxpacket 256 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0
> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0
> qdisc fq_codel 0: dev wlan1 parent :2 limit 1024p flows 1024 quantum 300
> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn
> Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> maxpacket 256 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0
> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0
> qdisc fq_codel 0: dev wlan1 parent :3 limit 1024p flows 1024 quantum 300
> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn
> Sent 51912 bytes 314 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> maxpacket 256 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0
> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0
> qdisc fq_codel 0: dev wlan1 parent :4 limit 1024p flows 1024 quantum 300
> target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms ecn
> Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> maxpacket 256 drop_overlimit 0 new_flow_count 0 ecn_mark 0
> new_flows_len 0 old_flows_len 0
> qdisc cake 8009: dev pppoe-wan root refcnt 2 bandwidth 850Kbit diffserv4
> flows atm overhead 40
Good, egress accounts for the link layer adaptation.
> Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
> rate 850Kbit 796880bit 637504bit 212496bit
> target 21.3ms 22.7ms 28.3ms 85.0ms
> interval 170.1ms 181.4ms 226.8ms 680.4ms
> Pk delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
> Av delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
> Sp delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
> pkts 0 0 0 0
> way inds 0 0 0 0
> way miss 0 0 0 0
> way cols 0 0 0 0
> bytes 0 0 0 0
> drops 0 0 0 0
> marks 0 0 0 0
> qdisc ingress ffff: dev pppoe-wan parent ffff:fff1 ----------------
> Sent 68 bytes 1 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> qdisc cake 800a: dev ifb4pppoe-wan root refcnt 2 bandwidth 8500Kbit
> besteffort flows atm overhead 40
So, I would be interested to learn how this now performs with
netperfrunner and/or betterspeedtest.sh
Best Regards
Sebastian
> Sent 90 bytes 1 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
> Class 0
> rate 8500Kbit
> target 5.0ms
> interval 100.0ms
> Pk delay 0us
> Av delay 0us
> Sp delay 0us
> pkts 1
> way inds 0
> way miss 1
> way cols 0
> bytes 90
> drops 0
> marks 0
>
>
>
> On 10/07/15 20:50, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 21:45 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> These are the latest scripts, AFAIK
>> Let me repeat my question: are these the scripts I attached in one of
>> the last mails, or the most recent scripts from ceropackages-3.10? The
>> version in the openwrt repository is NOT recent, yet. Pushing the latest
>> verso into openwrt is on my todo list but that will need a bit more changes,
>> so please try the files I attached which should work (unless I screwed up
>> and attached the wrong version). Also I have no working cake on my router
>> and hence require help for testing and that means there might be some
>> undiscovered bugs in there.
>>
>>> no overhead allowance. I note.
>> Well, that should work with the most recent version
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Sebastian
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/07/15 20:40, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>>>> Hi Fred,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 21:34 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> bridge sync is circa 10 000 kbit/s
>>>>>
>>>>> with the cake option in sqm enabled
>>>>>
>>>>> config queue 'eth1'
>>>>> option qdisc_advanced '0'
>>>>> option enabled '1'
>>>>> option interface 'pppoe-wan'
>>>>> option upload '850'
>>>>> option qdisc 'cake'
>>>>> option script 'simple_pppoe.qos'
>>>>> option linklayer 'atm'
>>>>> option overhead '40'
>>>>> option download ‘8500'
>>>> So this looks reasonable. Then again, if the DSLAM is under
>>>> provisioned/oversubscribed (= congested) shaping uypur DSL link might not
>>>> fix all buffer bloat..
>>>>
>>>>> tc -s qdisc show dev pppoe-wan
>>>>> qdisc htb 1: root refcnt 2 r2q 10 default 12 direct_packets_stat 0
>>>>> direct_qlen 3
>>>>> Sent 101336 bytes 440 pkt (dropped 2, overlimits 66 requeues 0)
>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
>>>>> qdisc cake 110: parent 1:11 unlimited diffserv4 flows raw
>>>>> Sent 4399 bytes 25 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
>>>>> Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
>>>>> rate 0bit 0bit 0bit 0bit
>>>>> target 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms
>>>>> interval 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms
>>>>> Pk delay 0us 0us 7us 2us
>>>>> Av delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
>>>>> Sp delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
>>>>> pkts 0 0 22 3
>>>>> way inds 0 0 0 0
>>>>> way miss 0 0 22 2
>>>>> way cols 0 0 0 0
>>>>> bytes 0 0 3392 1007
>>>>> drops 0 0 0 0
>>>>> marks 0 0 0 0
>>>>> qdisc cake 120: parent 1:12 unlimited diffserv4 flows raw
>>>>> Sent 96937 bytes 415 pkt (dropped 2, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
>>>>> Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
>>>>> rate 0bit 0bit 0bit 0bit
>>>>> target 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms
>>>>> interval 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms
>>>>> Pk delay 0us 28.0ms 0us 0us
>>>>> Av delay 0us 1.2ms 0us 0us
>>>>> Sp delay 0us 4us 0us 0us
>>>>> pkts 0 417 0 0
>>>>> way inds 0 0 0 0
>>>>> way miss 0 23 0 0
>>>>> way cols 0 0 0 0
>>>>> bytes 0 98951 0 0
>>>>> drops 0 2 0 0
>>>>> marks 0 0 0 0
>>>>> qdisc cake 130: parent 1:13 unlimited diffserv4 flows raw
>>>>> Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
>>>>> Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
>>>>> rate 0bit 0bit 0bit 0bit
>>>>> target 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms
>>>>> interval 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms
>>>>> Pk delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
>>>>> Av delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
>>>>> Sp delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
>>>>> pkts 0 0 0 0
>>>>> way inds 0 0 0 0
>>>>> way miss 0 0 0 0
>>>>> way cols 0 0 0 0
>>>>> bytes 0 0 0 0
>>>>> drops 0 0 0 0
>>>>> marks 0 0 0 0
>>>>> qdisc cake 140: parent 1:14 unlimited diffserv4 flows raw
>>>>> Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
>>>>> Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
>>>>> rate 0bit 0bit 0bit 0bit
>>>>> target 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms 5.0ms
>>>>> interval 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms 100.0ms
>>>>> Pk delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
>>>>> Av delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
>>>>> Sp delay 0us 0us 0us 0us
>>>>> pkts 0 0 0 0
>>>>> way inds 0 0 0 0
>>>>> way miss 0 0 0 0
>>>>> way cols 0 0 0 0
>>>>> bytes 0 0 0 0
>>>>> drops 0 0 0 0
>>>>> marks 0 0 0 0
>>>>> qdisc ingress ffff: parent ffff:fff1 ----------------
>>>>> Sent 273341 bytes 435 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
>>>>> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
>>>> But this is the hallmark of out of date sqm-scripts, this just uses
>>>> cake as leaf qdisc and keeps HTB as the main shaper; a configuration that
>>>> is useful for testing. I assume this is the old set of sqm-scripts not the
>>>> update I just sent as attachment? If so could you retry with the newer
>>>> scripts, please?
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> Sebastian
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/07/15 19:46, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Fred,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your results seem to indicate that cake is not active at all, as the
>>>>>> latency under load is abysmal (a quick check is to look at the median in
>>>>>> relation to the min and the 90% number, in your examples all of these
>>>>>> are terrible). Could you please post the result of the following
>>>>>> commands on your router:
>>>>>> 1) cat /etc/config/sqm
>>>>>> 2) tc -d qdisc
>>>>>> 3) tc -d class show dev pppoe-wan
>>>>>> 4) tc -d class show dev ifb4pppoe-wqn
>>>>>> 5) /etc/init.d/sqm stop
>>>>>> 6) /etc/init.d/sqm start
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hopefully these give some insight what might have happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And finally I would love to learn the output of:
>>>>>> sh betterspeedtest.sh -4 -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -t 150 -p
>>>>>> netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -n 4 ; sh netperfrunner.sh -4 -H
>>>>>> netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -t 150 -p netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -n 4
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many Thanks & Best Regards
>>>>>> Sebastian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 20:25 , Fred Stratton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By your command
>>>>>>> Rebooted to rerun qdisc script, rather than changing qdiscs from the
>>>>>>> command-line, so suboptimal process as end-point changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> script configuring qdiscs and overhead 40 on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p 2.96.48.1
>>>>>>> 2015-07-10 18:22:08 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4
>>>>>>> streams down and up while pinging 2.96.48.1. Takes about 60 seconds.
>>>>>>> Download: 6.73 Mbps
>>>>>>> Upload: 0.58 Mbps
>>>>>>> Latency: (in msec, 62 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>>>>>> Min: 24.094
>>>>>>> 10pct: 172.654
>>>>>>> Median: 260.563
>>>>>>> Avg: 253.580
>>>>>>> 90pct: 330.003
>>>>>>> Max: 411.145
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> script configuring qdiscs on flows raw
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p
>>>>>>> 78.145.32.1
>>>>>>> 2015-07-10 18:49:21 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4
>>>>>>> streams down and up while pinging 78.145.32.1. Takes about 60 seconds.
>>>>>>> Download: 6.75 Mbps
>>>>>>> Upload: 0.59 Mbps
>>>>>>> Latency: (in msec, 59 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>>>>>> Min: 23.605
>>>>>>> 10pct: 169.789
>>>>>>> Median: 282.155
>>>>>>> Avg: 267.099
>>>>>>> 90pct: 333.283
>>>>>>> Max: 376.509
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> script configuring qdiscs and overhead 36 on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p
>>>>>>> 80.44.96.1
>>>>>>> 2015-07-10 19:20:18 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4
>>>>>>> streams down and up while pinging 80.44.96.1. Takes about 60 seconds.
>>>>>>> Download: 6.56 Mbps
>>>>>>> Upload: 0.59 Mbps
>>>>>>> Latency: (in msec, 62 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>>>>>> Min: 22.975
>>>>>>> 10pct: 195.473
>>>>>>> Median: 281.756
>>>>>>> Avg: 271.609
>>>>>>> 90pct: 342.130
>>>>>>> Max: 398.573
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/07/15 16:19, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm glad to hear there's a working version (even if it's not in the
>>>>>>>> current build :).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have measurable improvements with overhead configured (v.s.
>>>>>>>> unconfigured)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've used netperfrunner from CeroWrtScripts, e.g.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p $ISP_ROUTER
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe accounting for overhead helps on this two-way test, because
>>>>>>>> a) it saturates the uplink b) about half that bandwidth is tiny ack
>>>>>>>> packets (depending on bandwidth asymmetry). And small packets have
>>>>>>>> proportionally high overhead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (But it seems to only make a small difference for me, which always
>>>>>>>> surprises Seb).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/07/15 15:52, Fred Stratton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You are absolutely correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I tried both a numeric overhead value, and alternatively 'pppoe-vcmux'
>>>>>>>>> and 'ether-fcs' in the build I crafted based on r46006, which is lupin
>>>>>>>>> undeclared version 2. Everything works as stated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On lupin undeclared version 4, the current release based on r46117,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> values were not recognised.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I had cake running on a Lantiq ADSL gateway running the same r46006
>>>>>>>>> build. Unfortunately this was bricked by attempts to get homenet
>>>>>>>>> working, so I have nothing to report about gateway usage at present.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/07/15 13:57, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> You're already using correct syntax - I've written it to be quite
>>>>>>>>>> lenient and use sensible defaults for missing information. There are
>>>>>>>>>> several sets of keywords and parameters which are mutually
>>>>>>>>>> orthogonal,
>>>>>>>>>> and don't depend on each other, so "besteffort" has nothing to do
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> "overhead" or "atm".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's probably happening is that you're using a slightly old version
>>>>>>>>>> of the cake kernel module which lacks the overhead parameter
>>>>>>>>>> entirely,
>>>>>>>>>> but a more up to date tc which does support it. We've seen this
>>>>>>>>>> combination crop up ourselves recently.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Jonathan Morton
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
