Hi Toke,
On Jun 16, 2013, at 22:55 , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen t...@toke.dk wrote:
Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de writes:
As far as I can tell at least VDSL typically means VDSL2 and that
probably means PTM instead of ATM. In essence this means you do not
have to deal with ATMs 48 payload
Hi Dave, hi Toke,
On Jun 16, 2013, at 22:57 , Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen t...@toke.dk wrote:
Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de writes:
As far as I can tell at least VDSL typically means VDSL2 and that
probably means PTM
Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de writes:
Honestly, I think the best thing to do is not so much assume ATM or
lack of ATM, but simply measure it :)
Right, doing the ping test with payload sizes from 16 to 113 packets
gives me an almost completely flat ping time distribution ranging from
20.3
Hi Toke,
On Jun 17, 2013, at 11:44 , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen t...@toke.dk wrote:
Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de writes:
Honestly, I think the best thing to do is not so much assume ATM or
lack of ATM, but simply measure it :)
Right, doing the ping test with payload sizes from 16 to 113
Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de writes:
I fully believe you that it is flat (graph did not make it into my
inbox…)
Heh. May have forgotten to attach it... Should be there now...
So that looks like PTM. Good! But beware the expected step size
depends on your down and uplink speeds, at VDSL
I don't think I pushed out the 6in4 patch into the build. Hell, I
forgot to tag it too. Remind me to take a vacation next vacation?
If these patches aren't in your build, it looks like we are indeed
only using one class for fq_codel 6in4 traffic and thus are reverting
to nearly pure codel
ok, 3.8.13-7 committed, tagged, and pushed. Sorry about that...
If you could redo that test with simplest.qos or with the
rrul_noclassification test, it would be interesting, then with the
patches, again...
TIA.
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't
You have this huge latency spike late in your test... (?)
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen t...@toke.dk wrote:
Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com writes:
I am curious: Is there a current user of cero using simplest.qos,
tunneling ipv6 via hurricane or 6to4, that can hammer
simplest.qos would be less noisy. ;)
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen t...@toke.dk wrote:
Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com writes:
I might be getting good at reading the patterns here - it looks like
this is fq_codel rather than nfq_codel?
It is.
ns2_codel is tighter
Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com writes:
You have this huge latency spike late in your test... (?)
Yeah, not sure why. I must add that this is with other traffic running
in the background, though.
-Toke
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com writes:
Well, that result is mildly puzzling. netperf-wrapper -6 throughout?
no ipv4?
There's some ipv4 traffic in the background. Dunno exactly how much.
You are on a dsl line, too? There has been some fixes to the overhead
issue that have landed but
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen t...@toke.dk writes:
There's some ipv4 traffic in the background. Dunno exactly how much.
Seems there's some torrenting going on. Will re-run the tests at some
time where the network is quiet (or where I won't have to disturb my
roommates to make it so). :)
-Toke
Hi Toke,
On Jun 16, 2013, at 21:36 , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen t...@toke.dk wrote:
Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com writes:
Well, that result is mildly puzzling. netperf-wrapper -6 throughout?
no ipv4?
There's some ipv4 traffic in the background. Dunno exactly how much.
You are on a dsl
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen t...@toke.dk wrote:
Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de writes:
As far as I can tell at least VDSL typically means VDSL2 and that
probably means PTM instead of ATM. In essence this means you do not
have to deal with ATMs 48 payload bytes
The 3.8.13-6 dev non-release has a trivial patch in it that I hoped would
improve 6in4 and 6to4 tunneling performance. I'm not in a position to test
at the moment.
I am curious: Is there a current user of cero using simplest.qos, tunneling
ipv6 via hurricane or 6to4, that can hammer it with
15 matches
Mail list logo
