I put a bug here. Someone with a non apu product struggling with
shaping (edgerouter? omnia?)
https://github.com/tohojo/sqm-scripts/issues/71
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:51 AM Pete Heist wrote:
>
> Cool, well I for one would like to see the APU be able to handle higher
> speeds, for FreeNet’s
Cool, well I for one would like to see the APU be able to handle higher speeds,
for FreeNet’s backhaul, at least. Although frankly, I’ve not definitively
witnessed any significant bloat in their backhaul yet with production traffic.
A good number of their routers are still ALIX
my guess is that burst and cburst should scale roughly as a function
of the bytes that can fit into 1ms.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:14 PM Dave Taht wrote:
>
> making htb's cburst and burst parameters 64k gets the APU2 up to
> where it can shape 900mbits. 3 ksoftirq handlers start getting cpu
>
making htb's cburst and burst parameters 64k gets the APU2 up to
where it can shape 900mbits. 3 ksoftirq handlers start getting cpu
time, and we end up 54% idle to achiefe that.
I should really go around running my own old code. I was deeply
involved in sqm when we still had to run at sub
less than scientifically (via monitoring top) - on the apu2
100Mbit sqm (htb + fq_codel)
fq_codel_mainline | fq_codel_fast
idle 78.8| 83.5 |
si20 | 16.1 |
Yea! But:
900Mbit sqm (htb + fq_codel)
fq_codel_mainline | fq_codel_fast
idle 74.4|
