Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

Sorry to keep following up with this; the other thing it gives you is things like sysctl parameters, kernel, tcp window scaling (pre and post test) and a bunch of per stream and aggregated metadata relating to the entire suite. In a nice self contained gzip that can produce lovely graphs using

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

In terms of what you need on the target netserver/netperf from ipkg is tiny and is all you need. On 30 January 2018 at 10:51, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > FLENT + RRUL testing is 4 up 4 down TCP streams with 4 different QoS > Markings, and then 4 different QoS Marked UDP

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

FLENT + RRUL testing is 4 up 4 down TCP streams with 4 different QoS Markings, and then 4 different QoS Marked UDP probes and ICMP. It gives you a measure of how much the CPU and Network path can cope with load conditions, which are more realistic for everyday use. iperf3 isn't going to give you

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

Any chance I can convince you to use netperf + FLENT for doing your tests rather than iperf(3)? flent.org -Joel On 30 January 2018 at 03:12, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Laurent GUERBY wrote: > >> So that means that you have to do the performance

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

Laurent GUERBY wrote: >> So that means that you have to do the performance testing for routing >> between two subnets. > Hi, > With wired, firewall off and using routing (no MASQUERADE, explicit LAN > route added on the NUC via WAN IP): Thanks for doing

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 19:12 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > Laurent GUERBY wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 17:09 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> Laurent GUERBY wrote: > >> > I tested today a few things on a brand new TP-Link >

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > (please don't top post). > > On 01/28/2018 02:00 PM, Rosen Penev wrote: >> Compared to the Archer C7v2, the v4 has a single ethernet interface >> switched between all 5 ports. The v2 has two ethernet interfaces with

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

Laurent GUERBY wrote: > On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 17:09 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: >> Laurent GUERBY wrote: >> > I tested today a few things on a brand new TP-Link Archer C7 >> v4.0, >> > LAN client Dell Latitude 7480 (eth

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

FYI - the Openfast path patches are applied to several trees. I am running them on a c7 v2 right now and am able to hit close to stock numbers. The NAT acceleration stuff isn't needed to with open-fastpath patches at all. relevant thread:

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

(please don't top post). On 01/28/2018 02:00 PM, Rosen Penev wrote: > Compared to the Archer C7v2, the v4 has a single ethernet interface > switched between all 5 ports. The v2 has two ethernet interfaces with > 4 ports being switched. > > Now the disappointing performance has several reasons to

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

Hi as I also am using the archer c7's as my build targets (and c2600's) I am watching this keenly; is anyone else running openvswtich on these with the XDP patches? The c2600 which is arm a15 - currently really could do with optimization and probably is a much better choice for CPE. I would not

Re: [LEDE-DEV] A state of network acceleration / test on Archer C7 v4

On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 19:30 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Hi Rafal, > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:25:10PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > Getting better network performance (mostly for NAT) using some kind > > of > > acceleration was always a hot topic and people are still > > looking/asking