out money, SpaceX is foolish not to apply for it.
David Lang
On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, Jeremy Austin wrote:
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:33:11 -0800
From: Jeremy Austin
To: dick...@alum.mit.edu
Cc: Cake List ,
Make-Wifi-fast ,
Bob McMahon , starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net,
codel
I agree that we don't want to make perfect the enemy of better.
A lot of the issues I'm calling out can be simulated/enhanced with different
power levels.
over wifi distances, I don't think time delays are going to be noticable (we're
talking 10s to low 100s of feet, not miles)
David Lang
it's receive
sensitivity.
David Lang
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, Bob McMahon wrote:
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 20:23:06 -0700
From: Bob McMahon
To: David Lang
Cc: Ben Greear ,
Luca Muscariello ,
Cake List ,
Make-Wifi-fast ,
Leonard Kleinrock , starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net,
codel
cases.
you don't need to include them in every test, but you need to have a way to
configure your lab to include them before you consider any settings/algorithm
ready to try in the wild.
David Lang
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, Bob McMahon wrote:
We find four nodes, a primary BSS and an adjunct one quite
is transmitting at much lower
power levels than it cn decode the signal.
David Lang
On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, Bob McMahon wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 4:16 PM David Lang wrote:
If you are going to setup a test environment for wifi, you need to include
the
ability to make a fe cases that only happen with RF
but station B cannot hear station A
3. station A can hear that station B is transmitting, but not with a strong
enough signal to decode the signal (yes in theory you can work around
interference, but in practice interference is still a real thing)
David Lang
I have seen some performance tests that do explicit DNS timing tests separate
from other throughput/latency tests.
Since DNS uses UDP (even if it then falls back to TCP in some cases), UDP
performance (and especially probability of loss at congested links) is very
important.
David Lang
e overhead.
The majority of the time, packets will be in order, but race conditions and
corner cases are allowed to forward packets out of order rather than having the
delay some packets to maintain the order.
David Lang
___
Codel mailing
be that it will help by better grouping traffic into
transmission bursts.
David Lang
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Phineas Gage wrote:
Given the half-duplex nature of 802.11 WiFi, is it possible to use fq_codel
with software rate limiting on separate hardware from the WiFi radio, while
still allowing at or near the full
On Fri, 20 May 2016, Jonathan Morton wrote:
On 20 May, 2016, at 17:04, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
Is it possible to get speed testing software to detect that it's receiving
fragments and warn about that?
Do iperf3’s maintainers accept patches?
don't know, I was thinkin
On Fri, 20 May 2016, Jonathan Morton wrote:
If the relative load from the flow decreases, BLUE’s action will begin to
leave the subqueue empty when serviced, causing BLUE’s drop probability to
fall off gradually, potentially until it reaches zero. At this point the
subqueue is naturally
(and no, path mtu discovery does
not always work)
David Lang
___
Codel mailing list
Codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/codel
a lot in general.
And, again, in this case TCP is broken too (750Mbps down to 550), so
it's not like Dave is saying that UDP test is broken, fq_codel is just
too hungry for CPU
while I wouldn't do it via wifi, syslog to/from relay systems can result in a
lot of UDP traffic that could look like a flood.
on 4 sta's.
2. lanforge wifi capacity test using tcp-download incrementing 4 sta's per
minute up to 64 sta's with each iteration attempting 500Mbps download per x
number of sta's.
what results are you getting? and what results are you hoping to get to?
David Lang
The qdiscs I am using
14 matches
Mail list logo
