> On Jun 26, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Pete, > >> On Jun 26, 2018, at 00:40, Pete Heist <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The rrul test over a point-to-point WiFi link cuts the total TCP throughput >> considerably below that of rrul_be. For example, on an 802.11n 20MHz MCS 15 >> link: >> >> rrul_be: ~90mbit >> rrul: ~30-45mbit > > I believe this is simply showing the cost of using the non-aggregating > AC_VO that also has an advantage of getting airtime, using that will > considerably lower the achievable goodput over the wifi channel. Add to this > that with RRUL both ends will send traffic that should be classified AC_VO > and the half-duplex nature of current wifi specs and there might simply be > much less total goodput available than one would fancy…
Understood...I’m not surprised by the result- it was mainly a lead in to the next part... > >> I think this came up before, but could the standard rrul test be exceeding >> the 802.11e spec in terms of how much bandwidth it's using for some access >> categories? > > Is there a standard for this? I should’ve written that more clearly, but that’s what I’m not sure of. I thought I remembered Toke saying before that we may be exceeding some limits with the rrul test on WiFi, but I can’t recall exactly or find a reference to any. In any case, I won’t treat rrul results as a real-world example of traffic for WiFi. Perhaps there’s an argument to be made that the rrul test should have (or allow) bitrate limits on individual flows, but this opens up more discussion about what constitutes a real-world test that may never fully result in something better than actually doing a real-world test… :) _______________________________________________ Flent-users mailing list [email protected] http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org
