On Mon, 16 May 2016, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
On 16 May 2016 at 11:12, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2016, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
On 6 May 2016 at 22:43, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6 May 2016 at 21:43, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 May 2016 at 15:47, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <bro...@redhat.com>
wrote:
That is too low a limit, also, for normal use. And:
for the purpose of this particular UDP test, flows 16 is ok, but not
ideal.
I played with different combinations, it doesn't make any
(significant) difference: 20-30Mbps, not more.
What numbers would you propose?
How many different flows did you have going at once? I believe that the
reason for higher numbers isn't for throughput, but to allow for more flows
to be isolated from each other. If you have too few buckets, different flows
will end up being combined into one bucket so that one will affect the other
more.
I'm testing with one flow, I never saw bigger performance with more
flows (e.g. -P8 to iperf3).
The issue isn't performance, it's isolating a DNS request from a VoIP flow
from a streaming video flow from a DVD image download.
The question is how many buckets do you need to have to isolate these in
practice? it depends how many flows you have. The default was 1024 buckets, but
got changed to 128 for low memory devices, and that lower value got made into
the default, even for devices with lots of memory.
I'm wondering if instead of trying to size this based on device memory, can it
be resizable on the fly and grow if too many flows/collisions are detected?
David Lang
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
