Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

It looks like the 1900v2 and the 1200 have the same chipset, i saw that the 1900v2 got more memory and a faster cpu to bring it up to match the 1200. My understanding is that the only difference between the two is 2x2 vs 3x3 and the cost. David Lang On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, dpr...@reed.com wrot

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: for the sake of spreading this caveat, it does seem like the open source driver for wifi in the WRT1200AC isn't in very good shape. It works, but it's very slow, speeds vary depending on what kind of client I connect with, and the latency is horrib

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, dpr...@reed.com wrote: Having not bought a 1200ac yet, I was wondering if I should splurge for the 1900ac v2 (which has lots of memory unlike the 1900ac v1). From what I can tell, the only thing that differs from the WRT1200AC is the radio. It still uses marvell radio but

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Rich Brown writes: > The CeroWrtScripts repo also has config-cerowrt.sh, a shell script > that I run immediately after flashing to configure a flock of things. Well I tend to build the config into the image, i.e. build an image specifically for the box I want to install. This has the nice proper

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Folks, >> ... The biggest problem is finding all those utilities one wants and making >> sure they're compiled into the image so one doesn't have to add them >> later. > > Yeah, realise that. Still have my old .config from when I used to build > cerowrt for the WNDR lying around somewhere, so wil

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Having not bought a 1200ac yet, I was wondering if I should splurge for the 1900ac v2 (which has lots of memory unlike the 1900ac v1). Any thoughts on the compatibility of this with the 1200ac? Current plans are to deploy Supermicro Mini ITX A1SRI-2558F-O Quad Core (Rangely) as my externally

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: >> Do you have a link to your .config for your builds somewhere? > > http://swm.pp.se/aqm/wrt1200ac.config Cool, thanks! > BUT! I have had problems getting WPA2 to work properly with this > .config. I must have missed something that is needed that has to do > with the

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: Do you have a link to your .config for your builds somewhere? http://swm.pp.se/aqm/wrt1200ac.config BUT! I have had problems getting WPA2 to work properly with this .config. I must have missed something that is needed that has to do with the

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > So if you were considering buying it and using it as a "daily driver" > for wifi in your home, wait until I have better news regarding the > wifi driver. I've already ping:ed Marvell about it and also spoken to > one developer working for Belkin/Linksys, and they're a

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi, for the sake of spreading this caveat, it does seem like the open source driver for wifi in the WRT1200AC isn't in very good shape. It works, but it's very slow, speeds vary depending on what kind of client I connect with, and the latency is horrible even with fq_codel or cake enabled on

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: attached is a patch for that, put it in your feeds/cero/kmod_sched_cake/patches directory, rebuild (make package/kmod-sched-cake/{clean,compile,install}) I compiled openwrt trunk with linux kernel v4.0 and

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: attached is a patch for that, put it in your feeds/cero/kmod_sched_cake/patches directory, rebuild (make package/kmod-sched-cake/{clean,compile,install}) I compiled openwrt trunk with linux kernel v4.0 and this patch, and the results are here

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: attached is a patch for that, put it in your feeds/cero/kmod_sched_cake/patches directory, rebuild (make package/kmod-sched-cake/{clean,compile,install}) Test results: http://swm.pp.se/aqm/rrul_150629-cake-11.tar -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: Most of the tests compare well with the reference rangeley data now. I would like a 900mbit soft shaped result. http://swm.pp.se/aqm/rrul_150629-cake-9.tar Above is with cake as link layer adaptation and pie, fq_codel and cake as 900 meg bidirectional sh

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi List, On Jun 29, 2015, at 18:44 , Dave Taht wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >> HI Mikael,, hi Jonathan, >> >>> [...] >>> >>> These are the results from 50M and 500M, also including 50up and 50down >>> that I added to my test suite script. >>> >>> http:/

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

I'd also like to be able to try it out on CPE hardware. However, what I've got is a Buffalo H300N, so I'll need build instructions (preferably starting from an existing stock build) as well as setup. The Buffalo isn't as powerful as some others, being based around a 34K core. - Jonathan Morton __

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > HI Mikael,, hi Jonathan, > >> [...] >> >> These are the results from 50M and 500M, also including 50up and 50down that >> I added to my test suite script. >> >> http://swm.pp.se/aqm/rrul_150629-cake-4.tar >> > > Now both ingress and egre

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

I would love to try out cake in my environment. However, as a non-combatant, it would be nice to have an instruction sheet on how to set the latest version up, and what hardware it works best on (WRT1200AC?). Obviously this is a work in progress, so that will change, but it would be nice to h

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

HI Mikael,, hi Jonathan, > [...] > > These are the results from 50M and 500M, also including 50up and 50down that > I added to my test suite script. > > http://swm.pp.se/aqm/rrul_150629-cake-4.tar > Now both ingress and egress are up to roughly 455Mbps from roughly 360 with cake just playing

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Mikael, On Jun 29, 2015, at 15:00 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > [...] > Hi, > > Ok, yes, this worked, I must have forgotten do to update after I moved > ceropackages to the top of the list before. Thanks! > > So now I have a sysupgrade image for the wrt1200ac that out of the box comes > wi

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: Mikael Abrahamsson writes: How can I tell which one of these actually is included? Tried moving the feed statement so ceropackages was first but that doesn't seem to have helped, I still get OpenWrt regular sqm-scripts (no cake in luci-app-sq

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > How can I tell which one of these actually is included? Tried moving the feed > statement so ceropackages was first but that doesn't seem to have helped, I > still get OpenWrt regular sqm-scripts (no cake in luci-app-sqm). You need to have the cero feed first in feed

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: Hi Mikael, since coke overhead seems to work, you can switch back to link layer none or set the overhead to 0 again. Thanks for testing this, which helps getting sqm-scripts into better shape, but will not be helpful fur your tests. In case you w

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Mikael, since coke overhead seems to work, you can switch back to link layer none or set the overhead to 0 again. Thanks for testing this, which helps getting sqm-scripts into better shape, but will not be helpful fur your tests. In case you want to try fancy options for cake the advances qd

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

HI Mikael, On Jun 29, 2015, at 10:09 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Ah, I see, you are still using tc’s stab mechanism for account of per >> packet overhead and link layer adjustments instead of cake’s (you need to >> check the advanced

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Jun 29, 2015, at 10:17 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> and hope that >> sqm_logger() { >> logger -t SQM -s "${1}” >> } >> >> Fixes the issue for me and is more concise than trying to introduce real >> error handling in sqm_logger. Does thi

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: and hope that sqm_logger() { logger -t SQM -s "${1}” } Fixes the issue for me and is more concise than trying to introduce real error handling in sqm_logger. Does this also work for you? Yes, I reverted my previous change, reproduced the hang,

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

HI Mikael, On Jun 29, 2015, at 09:54 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Good work-around; not a real solution as sqm_logger() will also add >> "SQM:”. I think the solution most likely is to remove line 155 completely. >> But weirdly this see

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: Ah, I see, you are still using tc’s stab mechanism for account of per packet overhead and link layer adjustments instead of cake’s (you need to check the advanced options check box in the link layer adjustments tab, and then select “cake” as the l

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

HI Mikael, On Jun 29, 2015, at 09:54 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Good work-around; not a real solution as sqm_logger() will also add >> "SQM:”. I think the solution most likely is to remove line 155 completely. >> But weirdly this see

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: Good work-around; not a real solution as sqm_logger() will also add "SQM:”. I think the solution most likely is to remove line 155 completely. But weirdly this seems to work with cerowrt… May I suggest a wrapper around the logger part that handle

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

HI MIkael, On Jun 29, 2015, at 07:11 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >> SQM: STAB: stab mtu 2047 tsize 512 mpu 0 overhead 42 linklayer ethernet >> + echo stab mtu 2047 tsize 512 mpu 0 overhead 42 linklayer ethernet >> + get_cake_lla_string >> + ST

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Mikael, On Jun 29, 2015, at 06:58 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Could you post the result of: >> >> cat /etc/config/sqm >> >> from the router, please? And the output of >> >> /etc/init.d/sqm stop ; /etc/init.d/sqm start >> >> this might

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: After the modification, the installed policy looks better, I am now not getting any drops in iperf3 (=ECN is working). Please see link to test results. From my bw monitoring script, it looks like I am receiving more than 500 megabit/s though, even

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: SQM: STAB: stab mtu 2047 tsize 512 mpu 0 overhead 42 linklayer ethernet + echo stab mtu 2047 tsize 512 mpu 0 overhead 42 linklayer ethernet + get_cake_lla_string + STABSTRING= + [ tc_stab = cake -a ethernet != none ] + sqm_logger + logger -t SQM -s

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: Could you post the result of: cat /etc/config/sqm from the router, please? And the output of /etc/init.d/sqm stop ; /etc/init.d/sqm start this might give me a clue where to look... root@OpenWrt:~# cat /etc/config/sqm config queue 'eth1'

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Mikael, On Jun 28, 2015, at 22:48 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Hi Mikael, > > root@OpenWrt:~# tc -d qdisc > qdisc htb 1: dev eth0 root refcnt 9 r2q 10 default 12 direct_packets_stat 0 > ver 3.17 direct_qlen 532 > qdisc fq_codel 110: dev e

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: Hi Mikael, root@OpenWrt:~# tc -d qdisc qdisc htb 1: dev eth0 root refcnt 9 r2q 10 default 12 direct_packets_stat 0 ver 3.17 direct_qlen 532 qdisc fq_codel 110: dev eth0 parent 1:11 limit 1001p flows 1024 quantum 300 target 5.0ms interval 100.0ms

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: So either I mixed things up later or Mikael’s simple.qos somehow got stale. Anyway, there is work thee for me to do to fix this up properly. I believe this is simple.qos from whatever nightly OpenWRT build there is. It's quite likely it didn't pul

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Dave, hi List, On Jun 28, 2015, at 20:04 , Dave Taht wrote: > htb + cake is the wrong configuration. :) “Wrong” might be a bit hard, but certainly not the preferred solution. During my tests on your box simple.qos resulted in the following: root@davedesk2:/usr/lib/sqm# tc -d qdisc q

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Mikael, thanks a lot. On Jun 28, 2015, at 19:32 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> This looks great, could you by any chance confirm that the GUI does >> allow to configure cake and that you can or can not set the overhead for >> cake in

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

htb + cake is the wrong configuration. :) cake has an integral bandwidth limiter and diffserv, there should be no htb here and it looked like their was. I have only been using the "simplest" qdisc, possibly the script for the simple qdisc is wrong? On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Jonathan Morto

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

To be honest, HTB + cake isn't really the preferred configuration. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: This looks great, could you by any chance confirm that the GUI does allow to configure cake and that you can or can not set the overhead for cake in the link layer adjustments (LLA) tab? (select cake as link layer adjustment method, and put 42 int

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Mikael, On Jun 28, 2015, at 12:29 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Ah, I see the latest changes have not yet made it into the openwrt >> repository (due to lack of testing). As I do not have permissions/authority >> to push changes into

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: Ah, I see the latest changes have not yet made it into the openwrt repository (due to lack of testing). As I do not have permissions/authority to push changes into the openwrt repository, there is nothing I can do to expedite the process. You coul

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Mikael, On Jun 28, 2015, at 09:06 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > >> src-git https://github.com/dtaht/ceropackages-3.10.git >> >> ./scripts feeds update >> ./scripts feeds install kmod-sched-cake tc-adv kmod-sched-fq_pie >> edit the .config file to mak

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: src-git https://github.com/dtaht/ceropackages-3.10.git ./scripts feeds update ./scripts feeds install kmod-sched-cake tc-adv kmod-sched-fq_pie edit the .config file to make them modules or installed by default make menuconfig then save make I have now don

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Dave, hi Mikael, On Jun 27, 2015, at 19:59 , Dave Taht wrote: >> [...] > > Yea, well, you need to use a diffserv enabled test to see marks or > drops in other queues. > > Sort of my hope is that cake can run at 940mbit with software rate > limiting. But we probably need to find ways of para

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Sigh. It is possible, maybe, to build something using this chipset that does not connect the wan port through the switch, built by someone else. Maybe some other manufacturer did that. I had first evaluated this chipset on the dual port mirabox, which as best as I recall had no switch, two genuine

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: Maybe you are dropping at the internal switch? A lot of manufacturers ran everything through the switch, even the uplink, in recent years. This will make things hard to fix. Looking at the vlans and pvids it looks like they've connected the SoC to port 5

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > >> your results are showing basically tail drop behavior. Although I >> would have expected intrinsic delay on the link to crack 100mbits on >> the rrul test, not 20ms (which is still high), and y

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: your results are showing basically tail drop behavior. Although I would have expected intrinsic delay on the link to crack 100mbits on the rrul test, not 20ms (which is still high), and you only hit 7 on the single threaded tcp up test, based on what I saw i

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

your results are showing basically tail drop behavior. Although I would have expected intrinsic delay on the link to crack 100mbits on the rrul test, not 20ms (which is still high), and you only hit 7 on the single threaded tcp up test, based on what I saw in the driver. turn off sqm, stay at 100m

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: Yes, but I am unsure from looking at the driver that using ethtool on the egress on the wrt1200ac will actually work, but pretty sure it will work if you set it on the server. feel free to try both. :) I set speed 100 on my switch and did some new tests,

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Dave Taht wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson >>> wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > Mikael, a

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Dave Taht wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: Mikael, a simple test of the analysis I just did would be to use ethtool to set your server to 100mbits

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Dave Taht wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: >> >>> Mikael, a simple test of the analysis I just did would be to use >>> ethtool to set your server to 100mbits (ethtool -s >>> your_etherne

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > >> Mikael, a simple test of the analysis I just did would be to use >> ethtool to set your server to 100mbits (ethtool -s >> your_ethernet_device advertise 0x008 and turn on fq_codel on both the >

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: Mikael, a simple test of the analysis I just did would be to use ethtool to set your server to 100mbits (ethtool -s your_ethernet_device advertise 0x008 and turn on fq_codel on both the client and server. Hm what do you mean by "client" and "server"? Wher

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Mikael, a simple test of the analysis I just did would be to use ethtool to set your server to 100mbits (ethtool -s your_ethernet_device advertise 0x008 and turn on fq_codel on both the client and server. if it is using classification for the hw mq, the rrul test from the client will blow up half

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote: > These would be hardware tail drops - there might not be a physical counter > recording them. But you could instrument three driver to see whether the > receive buffer is full when serviced. from drivers/net/ethernet/marvel/mvneta.c: /* Ma

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: I am never allergic to somene running a comprehensive flent suite through something, and sticking the results up somewhere. http://swm.pp.se/aqm/wdr4900-150626-9.tar Happy no sneezing! -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Tangent: What is the shaper rate the wdr4900 can push with >> sqm-scripts? (Before your 1200ac results the ppc-soc in the wdr4900 looked >> like the finest little router platform

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: Tangent: What is the shaper rate the wdr4900 can push with sqm-scripts? (Before your 1200ac results the ppc-soc in the wdr4900 looked like the finest little router platform in the last years, too bad it was ignored by the mass market...) Well, i

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

These would be hardware tail drops - there might not be a physical counter recording them. But you could instrument three driver to see whether the receive buffer is full when serviced. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Jonathan Morton wrote: > Hypothesis: this might have to do with the receive path. Some devices might > have more capacity than others to buffer inbound packets until the CPU can > get around to servicing them. *Good* hypothesis. I am certain I have seen this on mu

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Jonathan Morton wrote: Hypothesis: this might have to do with the receive path. Some devices might have more capacity than others to buffer inbound packets until the CPU can get around to servicing them. Is there a way to tell? I am better at diagnosing Cisco CPU based rou

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

HI Mikael, On Jun 26, 2015, at 16:49 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >> Btw, I tried WNDR3800 setting it to 100/100 SQM. It seems to max out around >> 25-30k PPS, but the difference is that when the CPU is full, it seems to >> delay/ECN-mark pac

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hypothesis: this might have to do with the receive path. Some devices might have more capacity than others to buffer inbound packets until the CPU can get around to servicing them. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.buff

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Btw, I tried WNDR3800 setting it to 100/100 SQM. It seems to max out around 25-30k PPS, but the difference is that when the CPU is full, it seems to delay/ECN-mark packets because there are no packets lost. When the WRT1200AC runs out of CPU it st

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Mikael, On Jun 26, 2015, at 14:26 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Thanks for the tests, now I know what router to try next (the edgerouterX, >> which I had eyed as a replacement for the shaper in the wndr3700 tops out at >> 130K packets per

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: Thanks for the tests, now I know what router to try next (the edgerouterX, which I had eyed as a replacement for the shaper in the wndr3700 tops out at 130K packets per second and hence will not really work that well for a 100/40 Mbps link). I di

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Mikael, thanks a lot. On Jun 24, 2015, at 13:31 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> As Dave said it would be nice see RRUL data from the same testbed. It would >> be so nice if flint had a way to send different sized TCP packets… (I guess >> th

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: on your host, server, or switch. (you have pfifo_fast on your host) Try fq_codel on host and server (and/or sch_fq) and see what happens. Disable tso/gro/gso on your server/host also. That leaves the switch which I have no insight into. What switch chip is

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: Dave Taht writes: Unfortunately the core piece of metadata I wanted from the router was the qdisc statistics. Didnt parse. Will file bug. My guess is that in this case it's due to the openwrt box missing the tc and ip binaries - those are n

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Dave Taht writes: > >> Unfortunately the core piece of metadata I wanted from the router was >> the qdisc statistics. Didnt parse. Will file bug. > > My guess is that in this case it's due to the openwrt box missing the tc > and ip

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Dave Taht writes: > Unfortunately the core piece of metadata I wanted from the router was > the qdisc statistics. Didnt parse. Will file bug. My guess is that in this case it's due to the openwrt box missing the tc and ip binaries - those are not installed by default... Or rather, sqm-scripts p

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Did you restart sqm after turning off offloads? maxpacket is accumulative and wont change back otherwise. ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > >> From what I see here you are rarely, if ever, engaging fq_codel >> properly. Latencies are pretty high. In particular, I would suspect >> you are hitting offloads hard, and the current (fixed in

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: 5) try disabling offloads on all interfaces on the router (or running cake) This is my next thing to test, I have some other things I need to try first. http://swm.pp.se/aqm/flent-mikabr-150625-2-sqm-tsogsogro-off.tar It includes an ethtool -k

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote: From what I see here you are rarely, if ever, engaging fq_codel properly. Latencies are pretty high. In particular, I would suspect you are hitting offloads hard, and the current (fixed in linux 4.1) codel drop algorithm stops dropping below "maxpacket", whi

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Aaron Wood wrote: > > Here's a long-range (indoors) test result with the 1900AC. I have about >> 9dB snr at the client (all the way across my house, which has plaster >> walls): >> > > Is this over a 25/5 Interne

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Aaron Wood wrote: Here's a long-range (indoors) test result with the 1900AC. I have about 9dB snr at the client (all the way across my house, which has plaster walls): http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/737736 download buffering is the 1900ac, upload buffering is the mac

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Here's a long-range (indoors) test result with the 1900AC. I have about 9dB snr at the client (all the way across my house, which has plaster walls): http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/737736 download buffering is the 1900ac, upload buffering is the mac laptop's driver. Both are trying too har

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> As Dave said it would be nice see RRUL data from the same testbed. It >> would be so nice if flint had a way to send different sized TCP packets… (I >> guess this might be faked with MSS

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: As Dave said it would be nice see RRUL data from the same testbed. It would be so nice if flint had a way to send different sized TCP packets… (I guess this might be faked with MSS clamping in the router and relaying on path MTU discovery?) What

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Jonathan Morton wrote: Not so easy to find those in Finland, it seems, but I assume Amazon carry them. www.webhallen.com is the only retailer in Sweden that currently have them in stock. They just now becoming available, so I would imagine in the next few weeks they'll b

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: Thanks a lot, interesting data! Was this test stressing both directions at the same time? (My guess is if the test was UDP i don’t know, for a TCP test I am quite confident that it was uni-directional as the @full MTU data does not show enough los

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Not so easy to find those in Finland, it seems, but I assume Amazon carry them. - Jonathan Morton ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

Hi Mikael, On Jun 23, 2015, at 14:55 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Most likely not. Check http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/sqm . Rich >> published a great set of instructions for setting up sqm-scripts under >> openwrt proper. > > I t

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Most likely not. Check http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/sqm . >> Rich published a great set of instructions for setting up sqm-scripts under >> openwrt proper. > > > I tried it

[Cerowrt-devel] performance numbers from WRT1200AC (Re: Latest build test - new sqm-scripts seem to work; "cake overhead 40" didn't)

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Sebastian Moeller wrote: Most likely not. Check http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/sqm . Rich published a great set of instructions for setting up sqm-scripts under openwrt proper. I tried it on Linksys WRT1200AC with OpenWrt CC RC2. I configured sqm to have 800 megabit/