Hi Fred,
On Dec 19, 2013, at 16:27 , Fred Stratton fredstrat...@ydl.net wrote:
On 19/12/13 15:07, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
Hi All,
On Dec 19, 2013, at 15:24 , Fred Stratton fredstrat...@ydl.net wrote:
2 comments:
You talk about link speed. This has 2 meanings:
the rate at
Hi Fred,
On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:33 , Fred Stratton fredstrat...@imap.cc wrote:
On 20/12/13 10:12, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
Hi Fred,
On Dec 19, 2013, at 16:27 , Fred Stratton fredstrat...@ydl.net wrote:
On 19/12/13 15:07, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
Hi All,
On Dec 19, 2013, at
What's in a name? AQM has been pretty thoroughly defined to equal
active queue *length* management and not packet scheduling.
Overloading AQM what cerowrt does is apt to cause even more
confusion in the field than it already does. We discussed using LBO as
a word but that appears hopelessly
I wanted to say how much I was enjoying catching up on this thread.
I think only one question came up for me during it, which is support
for a bfifo and pfifo qdisc? (if I missed something let me know )
Support for these are darn useful for the research and I have long
meant to fold in the
Any ideas for a name for packet scheduling, prioritization, and active
queue management better than just AQM, or QoS?
SQM Smarter Queue Management
CeroShaper
LBO Latency and Bandwidth Optimisation
--
Dave Täht
Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html
Dave,
You wrote:
What's in a name? AQM has been pretty thoroughly defined to equal
active queue *length* management and not packet scheduling.
Overloading AQM what cerowrt does is apt to cause even more
confusion in the field than it already does. We discussed using LBO as
a word but that
On Dec 20, 2013, at 4:22 PM, dpr...@reed.com wrote:
They are based on a completely false premise - that queues should be allowed
to build at all, and that local information can solve highly transient global
problems.
Dumb Queue Management is going to be far superior. Keep the queue at
Hi David,
On Dec 20, 2013, at 22:22 , dpr...@reed.com wrote:
Given that there is no likelihood of making localized queue management
intelligent because it has no global information whatsoever, I strongly
suggest that smart intelligent and even active are hugely misleading.
They are
Hi Rich,
On Dec 20, 2013, at 22:25 , Rich Brown richb.hano...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks,
I have always hungered for a two-part entry for the up and download link
speeds. It’s a little bit of a crock to make every customer break out their
calculator to compute 95% (or 92% or whatever
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM, dpr...@reed.com wrote:
Given that there is no likelihood of making localized queue management
intelligent because it has no global information whatsoever, I strongly
suggest that smart intelligent and even active are hugely misleading.
They are based on a
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Dec 20, 2013, at 19:01 , Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to say how much I was enjoying catching up on this thread.
I think only one question came up for me during it, which is support
for
Folks,
I have updated the CeroWrt 3.10 AQM page. Thanks for all the comments, I’ll
incorporate more comments as people send them in. Some thoughts on the page so
far:
- I agree that we should keep the descriptions generic (that is, not tailored
specifically to CeroWrt) so we can push into
Folks,
I just remembered that about a year ago, Bill McGonigle offered a “marketing
name” for CeroWrt - BroadbandEQ. He wrote:
From: Bill McGonigle b...@bfccomputing.com
Subject: Re: Dang, I forgot...
Date: December 10, 2012 11:13:55 PM EST
To: Richard Brown
Rationale: Not a precise
I have struggled with really low bandwidths. Folk like fred have
really struggled with low bandwidths (to the point of switching to pie
on his workload, which has a 20ms target), and having got some
configuration info from maxime over free.fr (biggest ecn enabled
fq_codel'd deployment I know of),
Aggh! the unaligned instructions are Baack? That would explain a lot.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Dec 20, 2013, at 19:01 , Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to say how much I was enjoying catching up on this thread.
Given that StreamBoost(tm) consists of fq_codel + bigfoots packet
classification technology and service which gives prioritization to
gamer packets + some kind of automatic rate finder (better than
gargoyle's ACC I'm told). I am increasingly irked by how the roles
these technologies' interplay are
I'm running 3.10.13-2 on a WNDR3800, and have used the suggested
settings from the latest draft:
http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWrt_310
I have a 30Mb down / 5Mb upload cable connection.
With fq_codel, even undershooting network upload bandwidth by more
On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:32 PM, Hector Ordorica hechack...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm running 3.10.13-2 on a WNDR3800, and have used the suggested
settings from the latest draft:
http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Setting_up_AQM_for_CeroWrt_310
I have a 30Mb down / 5Mb upload cable
And the pie tc if you are interested:
root@cerowrt:~# tc -s qdisc show dev ge00
qdisc htb 1: root refcnt 2 r2q 10 default 10 direct_packets_stat 0
Sent 9106696 bytes 50492 pkt (dropped 5317, overlimits 17208 requeues 0)
backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
qdisc pie 110: parent 1:10 limit 600p target 19
Interesting, I'll upgrade as soon as I have the chance to reconfigure it.
Pinging and testing to the same netalyzr server. The replies started
to drop during the downlink and uplink tests, except for fq_codel,
which remained relatively stable.
No AQM:
Reply from 54.234.36.13: bytes=32 time=96ms
20 matches
Mail list logo
