Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-28 Thread Ryan Mounce
On 22 December 2017 at 15:56, Jonathan Morton wrote: > Those threads are about 18 months old. Is it still happening the same way, > or has it become a large number of well-behaved TCP streams? Cake in > ingress mode can cope with the latter pretty well. At least in my

Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-28 Thread Ryan Mounce
On 29 December 2017 at 04:18, Benjamin Cronce wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Mounce wrote: >> >> I've experienced this recently myself. In my case I have a 100Mbps >> link from my ISP and their shaper will queue up to about 120ms worth

Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-28 Thread Benjamin Cronce
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Mounce wrote: > I've experienced this recently myself. In my case I have a 100Mbps > link from my ISP and their shaper will queue up to about 120ms worth > of packets (on top of the ~10ms baseline latency). I run cake in > ingress mode at

Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-22 Thread Rich Brown
> On Dec 22, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Mario Hock > wrote: > > Can you also track packet loss rates / packet loss probability? And also > throughput/progress of the Windows update connections? Oh, yes... I meant to add in the initial report that during

Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-22 Thread Rich Brown
Kevin, > Once the cake repo is sorted out I can redo & resubmit the patches for both > master & 1701 - and with a bit of luck we’ll all be in an even place again. Thanks for this update. I'm subscribed to the cake github stream, so I hear about changes there. If I understand correctly, after

Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-22 Thread Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> On 22 Dec 2017, at 03:57, Ryan Mounce wrote: > > Some further reading on the issue > > https://www.mail-archive.com/nanog@nanog.org/msg87442.html > https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2530363 > > Regards, > Ryan Mounce > Chaps, As a result of the following

Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-22 Thread Mario Hock
Hi, except from buffer bloat performance can also be degraded by an increased packet loss probability. Can you also track packet loss rates / packet loss probability? And also throughput/progress of the Windows update connections? If the reason actually is that FastTCP does not respond to

Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-21 Thread Jonathan Morton
Those threads are about 18 months old. Is it still happening the same way, or has it become a large number of well-behaved TCP streams? Cake in ingress mode can cope with the latter pretty well. - Jonathan Morton ___ Bloat mailing list

Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-21 Thread Jonathan Morton
Using the latest version of cake (cobalt branch) and - most importantly - turning on ingress mode should help here. - Jonathan Morton ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-21 Thread Ryan Mounce
Some further reading on the issue https://www.mail-archive.com/nanog@nanog.org/msg87442.html https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2530363 Regards, Ryan Mounce On 22 December 2017 at 13:25, Ryan Mounce wrote: > I've experienced this recently myself. In my case I have a

Re: [Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-21 Thread Ryan Mounce
I've experienced this recently myself. In my case I have a 100Mbps link from my ISP and their shaper will queue up to about 120ms worth of packets (on top of the ~10ms baseline latency). I run cake in ingress mode at 99.2Mbps, which has normally been enough to keep everything in check and keep my

[Bloat] Win10 Updates vs cake

2017-12-21 Thread Rich Brown
I'm using LEDE 17.01.4 on my Archer C7v2. I have a 7mbps/768kbps ADSL2+ connection through Fairpoint. The modem stats page shows its "attainable rates" (kbps): 13330/1272 and Rates: 8271/1181. My SQM settings are: Download: 7000 (kbps) Upload: 925 Queue Disc: Cake/piece_of_cake.qos Link Layer: