Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > Pete Heist writes: > >>> On Nov 27, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >>> >>> Pete Heist writes: >>> * I wonder if the UDP flood tests really work

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

Pete Heist writes: >> On Nov 27, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> >> Pete Heist writes: >> >>> * I wonder if the UDP flood tests really work at 900mbit: >> >> Did you set the UDP bandwidth? --test-parameter

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

I’m also finding out how simple it is to miss one little thing when looking at hundreds of test runs. Finding the “god metric” for rrul would make life easier... > On Nov 27, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Sebastian Moeller

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > But 444.35 + 443.65 = 888, no? My bad. I miss-read the test setup. Pre-coffee here, though, that caused an adrenalin spike. Yea! per host fairness 1v12! and correct bandwidth on this cpu. :whew: > >> On Nov 27, 2017,

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

But 444.35 + 443.65 = 888, no? > On Nov 27, 2017, at 18:33, Dave Taht wrote: > > georgios > > the result you got was "fair", but you shoul have seen something > closer to 900mbit than 400. > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Georgios Amanakis >

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

Saw that too, but I think his test was only for download, with one client with 1 flow and the second client with 12, so the total of the two seems correct... > On Nov 27, 2017, at 6:33 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > > georgios > > the result you got was "fair", but you shoul have

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

Yes, especially since you’ve got higher-end hardware than I. 443.65mbit vs 444.35mbit looks pretty fair. :) Thanks for reproducing it. I’m going to have to review some of my flenter tests in light of this. I’m getting a handle on the limitations of the APU2 hardware. It’s quite good especially

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

Dear Pete, I am trying to replicate the unfair behaviour you are seeing with dual-{src,dst}host, albeit on different hardware and I am getting a fair distribution. Hardware are Xeon E3-1220Lv2 (router), i3-3110M(Clients). All running Archlinux, latest cake and patched iproute2-4.14.1, connected

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

It's not at all obvious how we'd detect that. Packets are staying in the queue for less time than the codel target, which is exactly what you'd get if you weren't saturated at all. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote: > Looking at the Cake stats for that run, it doesn't seem to have been > signalling congestion at all, when you'd expect it to with 13 bulk flows > running through it. Something odd is going on there. > Ok, I’ll

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

Looking at the Cake stats for that run, it doesn't seem to have been signalling congestion at all, when you'd expect it to with 13 bulk flows running through it. Something odd is going on there. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cake mailing list

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 1:18 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote: > Here's the difference between "srchost" and "dual-srchost": the latter > imposes per-flow fairness on traffic to each host, with a separate queue/AQM > per flow like with "flows". The former only has one queue/AQM

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

Here's the difference between "srchost" and "dual-srchost": the latter imposes per-flow fairness on traffic to each host, with a separate queue/AQM per flow like with "flows". The former only has one queue/AQM per host. Analogously for dsthost. Then "hosts" mode allocates a separate queue for

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > > Pete Heist writes: > >> * I wonder if the UDP flood tests really work at 900mbit: > > Did you set the UDP bandwidth? --test-parameter udp_bandwidth=1000M for > instance Aha, that’s

Re: [Cake] cake flenter results round 1

Pete Heist writes: > * I wonder if the UDP flood tests really work at 900mbit: Did you set the UDP bandwidth? --test-parameter udp_bandwidth=1000M for instance -Toke ___ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Cake] cake flenter results round 1

http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/ Round 1 Tarball: http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1.tgz Round 0 Tarball (previous run):