On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com 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
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
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se 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
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
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Jonathan Morton chromati...@gmail.com 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
Hi Mikael,
On Jun 26, 2015, at 14:26 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se 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
On Jun 25, 2015 10:35 AM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been abusing it on a picostation and nanostation now for 48
hours. The archer c7v2 (as a source specific gateway) for a week. A
couple wndr3800s. No crashes. Can still trigger the dreaded wifi TX
DMA bug, but it seems
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
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
Hi Jim,
On Jun 26, 2015, at 19:21 , Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org wrote:
Inquiring minds would like to know….
I guess, that depends on your definition of “LUCI GUI for cake”; as far
as I know you can select cake in the “Queueing Discipline” drop down in the
“Queue Discipline” tab
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?
Where
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Jonathan Morton chromati...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
(am I looking at the right driver for the linksys ac1200? mikael? what
does lspci and/or dmesg say for both this and the wifi on this
platform?)
lvneta and mwlwifi according to ethtool -i eth0 and wlan0 respectively.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail:
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
On Jun 26, 2015, at 21:48 , Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
It turns out that I am pulling from openwrt for luci-app-sqm, not
ceropackages, and overriding it was a headache. Fixed now, see below
router# cd /tmp; wget
http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero3/luci-app-sqm_3-5_all.ipk ;
HI Mikael,
On Jun 26, 2015, at 16:49 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se 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
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,
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
Hi Dave, hi List,
On Jun 26, 2015, at 21:48 , Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
It turns out that I am pulling from openwrt for luci-app-sqm, not
ceropackages, and overriding it was a headache. Fixed now, see below
I guess Toke and I need to find a better way of updating the
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se 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
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
Mikael, a simple test of the analysis I just did would be to use
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se 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
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se
wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Dave
It turns out that I am pulling from openwrt for luci-app-sqm, not
ceropackages, and overriding it was a headache. Fixed now, see below
router# cd /tmp; wget
http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero3/luci-app-sqm_3-5_all.ipk ;
opkg install ./luci-app-sqm_3-5_all.ipk
router # /etc/init.d/uhttpd
Hi Mikael,
thanks a lot.
On Jun 24, 2015, at 13:31 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se 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
Hi Dave,
On Jun 26, 2015, at 00:26 , Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Sebastian Moeller moell...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Dave,
this looks really great, thanks a lot. As I want to take part in the cake
party, this looks like the easiest/best way to start.
Honestly, you cannot draw that conclusion on cake yet. The new
firmware forwarded at something like 35% better rates than the old.[1]
So if you can show a dsireports speedtest on your hardware, on
fq_codel, also... that would be confirmation we are winning on cake on
your hardware.
[1] I have
Thank you all for cake...
One of my recent pains had been that Comcast doubled my download speed to
100mbps, and CeroWrt using fq_codel/htb couldn't hack anywhere near that
speed.
Now I have things set using cake, and can do much better, and have my cake
and eat it too.
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,
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
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
