On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
FYI: Norway has at least two entirely distinct ISPs that offer 200
Mbit/sec or more. Switzerland has at least two ISPs that offer 150
Mbit/sec or more. (All four examples are to private end users; of
course, availability varies with where you liv
Hi Juliusz,
On Dec 7, 2013, at 13:59 , Juliusz Chroboczek
wrote:
>>> Perhaps you should push your system to OpenWRT?
>
>> There is still some work going on to streamline the gui.
>
> Fair enough. That's important.
>
>> there are less features in the aqm-scripts for prioritizing packet
>> t
On 12/08/2013 03:24 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
The comment about the WNDR3800 not being able to push this is of course
relevant, so I guess we need a better platform if we want to do testing
for these higher speeds.
Not cheap at $307 delivered (to AU) but ready to use straight away...
htt
>> FYI: Norway has at least two entirely distinct ISPs that offer 200
>> Mbit/sec or more.
> Sweden has a bunch of them as well, 1000/100 is quite common,
> 1000/1000 can be had
I stand corrected.
> The comment about the WNDR3800 not being able to push this is of
> course relevant,
I think that
>> The promise of fq_codel is that we can get rid of our prioritising
>> hacks -- if we need that kind of features, then fq_codel has
>> failed.
> Is that really true? given enough concurrent flows, critical flows
> might be delayed purely be the round robin scheduling of equally
> "worthy" packet
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Mark Constable wrote:
> On 12/08/2013 03:24 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
>> The comment about the WNDR3800 not being able to push this is of course
>> relevant, so I guess we need a better platform if we want to do testing
>> for these higher speeds.
>>
>
> No
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Outback Dingo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Mark Constable wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/2013 03:24 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>
>>> The comment about the WNDR3800 not being able to push this is of course
>>> relevant, so I guess we need a better platf
> The comment about the WNDR3800 not being able to push this is of course
relevant, so I guess we need a better platform if we want to do testing for
these higher speeds.
One thing that I've noticed a number of newer chipsets doing is moving
"network acceleration" into hardware, as a way to get to
Yeah, Comcast upped my 50/10 service to 100/20 without asking early in the
year.
We definitely need a better platform; but we've known that for quite a
while
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>
> FYI: Norway has at
On 8 Dec 2013, at 10:40, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> ...
> Is that really true? given enough concurrent flows, critical flows
> might be delayed purely be the round robin scheduling of equally "worthy"
> packets in fq_codel, so some residual priory system might still make sense…
Sebasti
Hi Juliusz,
On Dec 8, 2013, at 14:25 , Juliusz Chroboczek
wrote:
>>> The promise of fq_codel is that we can get rid of our prioritising
>>> hacks -- if we need that kind of features, then fq_codel has
>>> failed.
>
>> Is that really true? given enough concurrent flows, critical flows
>> might
On 12/09/2013 12:01 AM, Outback Dingo wrote:
Not cheap at $307 delivered (to AU) but ready to use straight away...
http://utilite-computer.com/web/utilite-pro-specifications
Mark.. http://cubieboard.org/
Id look at the Cubieboard3: Cubietruck
The SATA connector is good but it's not quite
On 8 Dec, 2013, at 3:12 pm, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> (2) making fq_codel do something fast at high data rates
At those sorts of data rates, the "usual" condition will be that the queue is
empty *and* the output interface can immediately accept a packet. With both of
those conditions satisf
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek
wrote:
>>> FYI: Norway has at least two entirely distinct ISPs that offer 200
>>> Mbit/sec or more.
>
>> Sweden has a bunch of them as well, 1000/100 is quite common,
>> 1000/1000 can be had
>
> I stand corrected.
>
>> The comment about the WNDR38
> > as long as you have fewer than 250 congestion-limited flows at
> > a given time.
> Currently not doing much of anything my router has 142 active
> connections (according to conntrack)
142 active conntrack entries, as opposed to congestion-limited flows.
Roughly speaking, an active conntrack e
> > I think that the WNDR3800 should be able to push a gigabit, even with NAT.
>
> No, it tops out at about 330Mbit/sec currently with no firewall rules,
> no nat.
Full-size frames? That sucks. (And thanks for the hard data.)
> No. aqm-scripts can't push 110KB/sec through *HTB*.
Typo?
> The
Hi Mark,
On Dec 8, 2013, at 17:44 , Mark Constable wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 12:01 AM, Outback Dingo wrote:
>>> Not cheap at $307 delivered (to AU) but ready to use straight away...
>>> http://utilite-computer.com/web/utilite-pro-specifications
>>
>> Mark.. http://cubieboard.org/
>> Id look at
Data point: Annex M ADSL2 can be approximated as 10M down, 2M up in
practice. Throw BitTorrent at that, and round-robin delay absolutely is
relevant. ADSL1 connections will be even more so. Not everyone lives in a
city in Scandinavia.
So a simple tiered scheme which can distinguish VoIP from BitTo
Hi Juliusz,
On Dec 8, 2013, at 18:47 , Juliusz Chroboczek
wrote:
>>> as long as you have fewer than 250 congestion-limited flows at
>>> a given time.
>
>> Currently not doing much of anything my router has 142 active
>> connections (according to conntrack)
>
> 142 active conntrack entries, as
Hi Jonathan,
On Dec 8, 2013, at 20:01 , Jonathan Morton wrote:
> Data point: Annex M ADSL2 can be approximated as 10M down, 2M up in practice.
> Throw BitTorrent at that, and round-robin delay absolutely is relevant. ADSL1
> connections will be even more so. Not everyone lives in a city in Sc
> Even at 1000 symmetric I still think it would be a good idea to isolate
> really latency critical traffic from the rest, even if under normal
> circumstances there should be no problem, I guess a "better safe than sorry"
> approach. But, hey I do not do this for a living so I might be on t
On 8 Dec, 2013, at 7:56 pm, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> Notably it seems few have internalized what the "sparse stream"
>> optimization does for things like voip.
>
> We're waiting with held breath until you care to enlighten us ;-)
I think I know what he's talking about. This is where a pack
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 12:41:52 -0800
Hal Murray wrote:
>
> > Even at 1000 symmetric I still think it would be a good idea to isolate
> > really latency critical traffic from the rest, even if under normal
> > circumstances there should be no problem, I guess a "better safe than sorry"
> > appr
23 matches
Mail list logo
