On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 11:39 AM Pete Heist <p...@heistp.net> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 28, 2018, at 7:32 PM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Exactly. Many members, including myself, are limited by our CPE links >> during off hours, and by the backhaul during high traffic hours. >> >> >> 3 items >> >> 1) Co-locating some essential services (like netflix) might be of help. >> >> >> That’s a good idea, will bring that up with the admins. >> >> Netflix is here now, but many folks seem to use “O2 TV Air”, which is a >> way to watch ordinary cable packages over any Internet connection (not just >> from O2). SD streams are 3Mbit and HD 6Mbit. Weirdly, they don’t pace out >> their data but there’s a characteristic “pulsing” of the streams every 5 >> seconds that when I see it on the router's throughput graph I know, yep, >> that’s O2 TV. I’ll find out if their on-demand stuff has such a co-location >> option. >> >> https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ >> >> 2) If the members voted for more backhaul, the costs are understandable… >> >> >> Backhaul upgrades are coming into focus gradually, and upgrading those >> ALIX boxes which are tanks but...tanks. >> > > apu2s are thus far being tanks for me. wndr3800s with multi-year cerowrt > uptimes now exist, too. > > >> >> I think some of the higher costs come from physical installations / >> placement rights. Surprising what towers can cost. >> >> 3) Philosophically I vastly prefer the concept of "everyone sharing >> the network", rather than rate plans, to create some market tension as >> to the available bandwidth at any given time of day. >> >> >> Agree wholeheartedly. Rate limiting members isn’t necessary for a >> non-profit (no profit motive) and especially if we can get fairness right, >> there’s no technical reason to do it that I know of either. >> >> > It would be a better world if more isps served their users and didn't buy > film studios. > > >> ubnt did add at least airtime fairness to airos a year or two back. It >> was not on by default. Their "TDMA" qos system was this insane mess of >> sfq rules when I tore it apart.... 8 years back. >> >> >> I don’t know what they’re doing in their newer AC stuff, but I'm >> surprised by what appears to be ~6-8ms latency >> > > Something fq_codel-like is now in qualcomms proprietary firmware I'm told. > No ecn > Which qca chipset ? Which version of the firmware ? > > >> under load on the NanoStation 5 AC Loco’s I got for the camp’s backhaul. >> Is it really that good? This is in contrast to the 50+ms I see with rrul_be >> on the NanoStation M5 (without controlling the queue). >> > > ubnt both cases? doubt it's the same bandwidth both cases. should be > proportional to the latency you are seeing. running 2x2 incurs a latency > penalty also. > > >> This test is straight AP to AP though, with probably 1 flow up and 1 down >> plus ping, so I want to get 2-4 more of these and do rrul_be through the >> Ethernet ports, to get more flows and UDP, and see how it looks then. >> > > Run more flows. SFQ is per packet fq. They have right-sized buffers when > the link is running at close to the configured rate, not when it's > stuggling. > > I also seem to remember they reduced the txop to ~2ms. turned off 802.11e. > I've recommended this for years now in the general case. > > Their 100mbit ethernet devices also do flow control and are more often the > bottleneck than not, so the wifi runs empty more often. > > I LIKE their gear. Despite all we've done here there are still things they > do better. > > >> >> >> > > -- > > Dave Täht > CEO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-669-226-2619 > > _______________________________________________ > Cake mailing list > Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake > >
_______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
