Hi David,
On Oct 24, 2015, at 18:34 , David P. Reed <dpr...@reed.com> wrote:
> Not trying to haggle.
Sorry, I was a bit to grumpy for unrelated reasons.
> Just pointing out that this test configuration has a very short RTT. maybe
> too short for our SQM to adjust to.
That could be, but I believe people have tested fq_codel and sqm with
similar setups and generally got dozens of milliseconds induced delay, not
multiple seconds. So sure sqm might not for the best thing but it should
deliver a reasonable compromise. Now, I believe Toke has a test bed where he
can vary the transmission delay so he might know already whether sqm has issues
with 1GE lans.
Best Regards
Sebastian
>
> On Oct 24, 2015, Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 00:53 , David P. Reed <dpr...@reed.com> wrote:
>
> In particular, the DUT should probably have no more than 2 packets of
> outbound queueing given the very small RTT. 2xRTT is the most buffering you
> want in the loop.
>
> Let’s not haggle about the precise amount of queueing we deem acceptable, as
> long as we all agree that >= 2 seconds is simply not acceptable ;) (the
> default sqm will approximately limit the latency under load increase (LULI)
> to roughly twice the target or typically 10 ms; note that this LULI only
> applies to unrelated flows). The exact number of queued packets seems to
> correlate with the beefiness of the DUT, the beefier the fewer packets should
> work, wimpier devices might need to batch some processing up, resulting in
> higher LULI…
>
> Best Regards
> Sebastian
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2015, Richard Smith <smithb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 02:41 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Richard Smith <smithb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My test setup:
>
> Laptop<--1000BaseT-->DUT<--1000baseT-->Server
>
> So, given that the DUT is the only real constraint in the network, what
> do you expect to see from this setup?
>
> Given that the probably DUT can't forward at Gb/s, and it certainly can't
> shape anything, it's gonna drop packets, and it's probably gonna drop them in
> Rx, having overrun the Rx-queue (so tail-drop). If there is too much ram
> (bufferbloated), then you'll see different results...
>
> Setting ingress/egress to 10Mbit/s I expected to see the speed
> measurements bounce around those limits with the ping times staying in
> the low double digits of ms. What I saw however, was the data rates
> going well past 10Mbit limit and pings up to 2000 ms.
>
> This is what I've seen in prior rrul testing using a the 50/10 cable
> link at our office and my 25(ish)/6 link at my apartment and a well
> connected server on the net. That however was using QoS and not SQM.
>
> Its that a reasonable expectation?
>
> -- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing.
>
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>
>
> -- Sent with K-@ Mail - the evolution of emailing.
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
