I'm seeing something that looks more dodgy than normal.
Test case id ath10k station uploading to ath10k AP.
AP is always running 4.2 kernel in this case, and both systems are using
the same ath10k firmware.
I have tuned the stack:
echo 400 > /proc/sys/net/core/wmem_max
echo 4096 87380 5000
Gah, seems 'cubic' related. That is the default tcp cong ctrl
I was using (same in 3.17, for that matter).
Most other rate-ctrls vastly out-perform it.
On 10/02/2015 04:42 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
I'm seeing something that looks more dodgy than normal.
Gah, seems 'cubic' related. That is the
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
> Gah, seems 'cubic' related. That is the default tcp cong ctrl
> I was using (same in 3.17, for that matter).
There have been recent changes to CUBIC that may account for this. If
you could repeat your test with more instrumentation, eg "nstat",
On 10/03/2015 09:29 AM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
Gah, seems 'cubic' related. That is the default tcp cong ctrl
I was using (same in 3.17, for that matter).
There have been recent changes to CUBIC that may account for this. If
you could repeat y
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/2015 09:29 AM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Ben Greear
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gah, seems 'cubic' related. That is the default tcp cong ctrl
>>> I was using (same in 3.17, for that matter).
>>
>>
>> There ha
On 10/03/2015 06:20 PM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
On 10/03/2015 09:29 AM, Neal Cardwell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Ben Greear
wrote:
Gah, seems 'cubic' related. That is the default tcp cong ctrl
I was using (same in 3.17, for th
On Sun, 2015-10-04 at 10:05 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> I guess I'll just stop using Cubic. Any suggestions for another
> congestion algorithm to use? I'd prefer something that worked well
> in pretty much any network condition, of course, and it has to work with
> ath10k.
>
> We can also run so
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-10-04 at 10:05 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
>
>> I guess I'll just stop using Cubic. Any suggestions for another
>> congestion algorithm to use? I'd prefer something that worked well
>> in pretty much any network condition, of cours
On 10/04/2015 10:28 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Sun, 2015-10-04 at 10:05 -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
I guess I'll just stop using Cubic. Any suggestions for another
congestion algorithm to use? I'd prefer something that worked well
in pretty much any network condition, of course, and it has to
