I happen to also be working on a bridge setup, but it’s different. For one, I
used fq_codel on a transparent bridge for a couple years in production and it
worked well, so I trust it also would for cake.
But now, my neighbor will access the Internet through my CPE device, but they
must have a
There was a very good paper or two (I think luca co-authored one) that
showed that "active flows" were generally measured in the mid 200s in
nearly any scenario. I agreed with that which was in part why I felt
we could stick
with 1024 queues, a direct mapped hash, and a couple collisions.
cake
Interesting, sounds like a good data point for the ECN debate. I wonder if that
pathology happens at lower flow counts.
I’ve been getting into FreeNet’s backhaul. Four of their backhaul links, the
orange lines in the following map, are licensed spectrum full-duplex 100Mbit
wireless links (not
Hi Dave,
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 19:22, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> There was a very good paper or two (I think luca co-authored one) that
> showed that "active flows" were generally measured in the mid 200s in
> nearly any scenario. I agreed with that which was in part why I felt
> we could stick
>
After clearing my plate for the past few months, I wanted to tackle
something that keeps me awake at night.
We just started an attempt to start taking a hard look at deployed ECN
behaviors over the fq_codel, fq_pie, and fq_codel for wifi
deployments:
Cool, well I for one would like to see the APU be able to handle higher speeds,
for FreeNet’s backhaul, at least. Although frankly, I’ve not definitively
witnessed any significant bloat in their backhaul yet with production traffic.
A good number of their routers are still ALIX
Pete Heist writes:
> I happen to also be working on a bridge setup, but it’s different. For
> one, I used fq_codel on a transparent bridge for a couple years in
> production and it worked well, so I trust it also would for cake.
>
> But now, my neighbor will access the Internet through my CPE
Pete Heist writes:
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>
>> There was a very good paper or two (I think luca co-authored one) that
>> showed that "active flows" were generally measured in the mid 200s in
>> nearly any scenario. I agreed with that which was in part why I felt
>> we
I put a bug here. Someone with a non apu product struggling with
shaping (edgerouter? omnia?)
https://github.com/tohojo/sqm-scripts/issues/71
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:51 AM Pete Heist wrote:
>
> Cool, well I for one would like to see the APU be able to handle higher
> speeds, for FreeNet’s
re: conntrack - I think the udp standard for holding a hole punch open
is 2-3 minutes. I've
seen 30 sec or less in the field.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:36 AM Pete Heist wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> >
> > There was a very good paper or two (I think luca
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:04 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>
> Pete Heist mailto:p...@heistp.net>> writes:
>
>> But now, my neighbor will access the Internet through my CPE device,
>> but they must have a separate IP obtained through DHCP (i.e. a
>> separate MAC address as well), and I want
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> There was a very good paper or two (I think luca co-authored one) that
> showed that "active flows" were generally measured in the mid 200s in
> nearly any scenario. I agreed with that which was in part why I felt
> we could stick
> with 1024
That means that the conntrack numbers give an upper bound, no?
Best Regards
Sebastian
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 20:40, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> re: conntrack - I think the udp standard for holding a hole punch open
> is 2-3 minutes. I've
> seen 30 sec or less in the field.
>
> On Thu, Sep 6,
Heh. esfq was "best in class" for a very, very long time.
I have years of mrtg data on my network that I haven't looked at in years
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:37 PM Pete Heist wrote:
>
> I met with the FreeNet Liberec admins earlier this week, and am just starting
> to get the first IRTT /
> On 7 Sep, 2018, at 1:37 am, Pete Heist wrote:
>
> This router is an old ALIX with kernel 2.6.26, but on the other hand it does
> have hfsc + esfq (a variant of sfq with host fairness) deployed, so if it’s
> actually controlling the queue, one might suspect that sfq it could control
>
I met with the FreeNet Liberec admins earlier this week, and am just starting
to get the first IRTT / SmokePing probe data from a few backhaul routers. I’ll
see if I can get snapshots of the SmokePing pages public somewhere, but for
now...
https://www.heistp.net/downloads/jerab_ping.pdf
16 matches
Mail list logo
