On 5 May 2016 at 16:55, Roman Yeryomin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2 May 2016 at 21:40, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Roman Yeryomin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 1 May 2016 at 17:47, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Maybe I missed something, but why is it important to optimize for a UDP >>>> flood? >>> >>> We don't need to optimize it to UDP but UDP is used e.g. by torrents >>> to achieve higher throughput and used a lot in general. >> >> Torrents use uTP congestion control and won't hit this function at >> all. And eric just made fq_codel_drop more efficient for tests that >> do. >> >> There are potentially zillions of other issues with ampdu's, txop >> usage, aggregate "packing", etc that can also affect and other >> protocools. >> >>> And, again, in this case TCP is broken too (750Mbps down to 550), so >>> it's not like Dave is saying that UDP test is broken, fq_codel is just >>> too hungry for CPU >> >> "fq_codel_drop" was too hungry for cpu. fixed. thx eric. :) >> >> I've never seen ath10k tcp throughput in the real world (e.g not wired >> up, over the air) even close to 750 under test on the ath10k (I've >> seen 300, and I'm getting some better gear up this week)... and >> everybody tests wifi differently. > > perhaps you didn't have 3x3 client and AP? > >> (for the record, what was your iperf tcp test line?). More people >> testing differently = good. > > iperf3 -c <server_ip> -t600
actually `iperf3 -c <server_ip> -t600 -R` for download, client POV _______________________________________________ Codel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel
