Quello che va meglio :) Ce ne saranno una dozzina nel kernel, aggiungili. Così, a naso, vista la natura particolare del canale, un algo abbastanza tollerante alle perdite/timeout. Ma questo solo per capire sa cambia qualcosa o siamo sempre con gli stessi valori..
Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 14:23, Gioacchino Mazzurco <gmazzurc...@gmail.com>ha scritto: > non so quale usa di default tu quale mi consigli di usare? > > Il 03 luglio 2011 14:18, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha scritto: > > Bene, ora puoi ripetere le prove cambiando l'algoritmo di controllo di > > congestione sul client iperf. > > Cosa stai usando ora? Reno? > > > > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 14:09, Gioacchino Mazzurco < > gmazzurc...@gmail.com> > > ha scritto: > >> > >> altri test fissando la quantita' > >> > >> [ 4] 0.0-62.2 sec 2.00 MBytes 270 Kbits/sec > >> [ 4] 0.0-55.3 sec 2.00 MBytes 304 Kbits/sec > >> [ 4] 0.0-64.2 sec 2.00 MBytes 261 Kbits/sec > >> [ 4] 0.0-58.8 sec 2.00 MBytes 285 Kbits/sec > >> [ 4] 0.0-99.6 sec 2.00 MBytes 169 Kbits/sec > >> [ 4] 0.0-96.4 sec 2.00 MBytes 174 Kbits/sec > >> [ 4] 0.0-89.8 sec 2.00 MBytes 187 Kbits/sec > >> [ 4] 0.0-66.4 sec 2.00 MBytes 253 Kbits/sec > >> [ 4] 0.0-99.9 sec 2.00 MBytes 161 Kbits/sec > >> [ 4] 0.0-88.1 sec 2.00 MBytes 190 Kbits/sec > >> > >> > >> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:57, Gioacchino Mazzurco <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> ha > >> scritto: > >> > senza tinc la configurazione rimane uguale ma il traffico al posto di > >> > passare dal tunnel via internet passa solo attraverso i link wireless > >> > > >> > Il 03 luglio 2011 13:51, Antonio Quartulli <or...@autistici.org> ha > >> > scritto: > >> >> On dom, lug 03, 2011 at 01:48:37 +0200, Gioacchino Mazzurco wrote: > >> >>> il test e' sempre PC( iperf -c ) <-- cavo lan --> Piconstation ( > >> >>> btman-adv + tinc )<-- tinc ---> PC( batman-adv + tinc + iperf -s) > >> >> > >> >> anche senza TINC la configurazione rimane uguale? scusa ma non ho > >> >> capito > >> >> questo daalle mail precedenti > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> >usa un vincolo temporale o quantitativo, sti valori sono troppo > >> >>> >deviati.. > >> >>> > >> >>> quei test non sono fatti in parallelo sono fatti in modo sequenziale > >> >>> quindi volta per volta c'e' ne e' attivo solo uno > >> >>> > >> >>> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:40, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha scritto: > >> >>> > Magari se scegliessi un test "unico" sarebbe anche meglio, > >> >>> > usa un vincolo temporale o quantitativo, sti valori sono troppo > >> >>> > deviati.. > >> >>> > Se non mi dicessi della CPU a palla, guardando sta roba ti direi > che > >> >>> > è > >> >>> > congestione.. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 13:31, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >> >>> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> > >> >>> > ha scritto: > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> altra serie di test > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-18.8 sec 384 KBytes 167 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-17.5 sec 384 KBytes 180 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-20.0 sec 384 KBytes 157 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.1 sec 384 KBytes 149 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-23.5 sec 512 KBytes 178 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-32.3 sec 384 KBytes 97.3 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-20.8 sec 384 KBytes 151 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-27.7 sec 256 KBytes 75.8 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.8 sec 256 KBytes 96.3 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-14.3 sec 512 KBytes 294 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-14.0 sec 512 KBytes 299 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-37.6 sec 512 KBytes 112 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-18.7 sec 512 KBytes 224 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.3 sec 384 KBytes 148 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-17.9 sec 640 KBytes 293 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-24.8 sec 512 KBytes 169 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-23.5 sec 512 KBytes 178 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-16.4 sec 384 KBytes 192 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> [ 4] 0.0-21.4 sec 384 KBytes 147 Kbits/sec > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> ho spento dnsmasq che non serviva a niente e andiamo di poco ma > >> >>> >> meglio > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:16, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha > scritto: > >> >>> >> > Il sintomo è abbastanza chiaro, ma dubito sia colpa della CPU o > >> >>> >> > meglio, > >> >>> >> > secondo me qualcosa > >> >>> >> > è stata scritta male, 100Kbps sono davvero ridicoli. A maggior > >> >>> >> > ragione > >> >>> >> > quando ste cpu hanno anche qualche set dedicato > >> >>> >> > alla crittografia simmetrica... > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 13:04, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >> >>> >> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> > >> >>> >> > ha scritto: > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> ma il problema sembra proprio l'eccessivo utilizzo di cpu per > la > >> >>> >> >> vpn > >> >>> >> >> perche' stando in ssh sulla picostation mentre c'e' traffico > che > >> >>> >> >> passa > >> >>> >> >> sulla vpn diventa completamente unresponsive non sente nemmeno > >> >>> >> >> ctrl+c > >> >>> >> >> sulla shell... quando il traffico finisce mi esegue tutto > quello > >> >>> >> >> che > >> >>> >> >> gli avevo mandato nel fratempo > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 13:01, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >> >>> >> >> <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> ha > >> >>> >> >> scritto: > >> >>> >> >> >>Hai la possibilità di usare una CPU + potente (tincare dal > >> >>> >> >> >> PC)? > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > dovrei installarmi anche batman-adv sul pc... > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > Il 03 luglio 2011 12:58, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha > >> >>> >> >> > scritto: > >> >>> >> >> >> E' chiaro che non può essere il tuo upstream, > >> >>> >> >> >> ma sei certo che il collo di bottiglia non sia nella > capacità > >> >>> >> >> >> di sta > >> >>> >> >> >> rete > >> >>> >> >> >> mesh tunnellata? > >> >>> >> >> >> Hai provato a lanciare 2 iperf in parallelo? > >> >>> >> >> >> Hai la possibilità di usare una CPU + potente (tincare dal > >> >>> >> >> >> PC)? > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 12:34, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >> >>> >> >> >> <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> > >> >>> >> >> >> ha scritto: > >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> la picostation a e la z sono la stessa picostation... > dalla > >> >>> >> >> >>> picostation a posso decidere se accendere tinc e quindi > far > >> >>> >> >> >>> passare > >> >>> >> >> >>> traffico mesh su internet oppure se usare solo i link > >> >>> >> >> >>> wireless > >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> dal computer pocco decidere sia di usare la picostation > come > >> >>> >> >> >>> gw sia > >> >>> >> >> >>> di > >> >>> >> >> >>> usare il router adsl > >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> le casistiche quindi sono 3 > >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> iperf via internet senza tinc >500KB/s > >> >>> >> >> >>> iperf via mesh senza tinc ~ 20Kb/s > >> >>> >> >> >>> iperf via mesh tunnellata su internet con tinc ~100Kb/s > >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> Il 03 luglio 2011 12:27, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> ha > >> >>> >> >> >>> scritto: > >> >>> >> >> >>> > Fammi capire: > >> >>> >> >> >>> > - tra le tua pico(A) e quella(Z) con l'adsl ci sono > >> >>> >> >> >>> > diversi nodi > >> >>> >> >> >>> > e > >> >>> >> >> >>> > con > >> >>> >> >> >>> > iperf > >> >>> >> >> >>> > hai risultati di 20Kbps (A->Z) in L3 puro ? Mentre se > usi > >> >>> >> >> >>> > tinc va > >> >>> >> >> >>> > a > >> >>> >> >> >>> > 100Kbps? > >> >>> >> >> >>> > - chi sono gli end-point tinc? > >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 12:12, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >> >>> >> >> >>> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> > >> >>> >> >> >>> > ha scritto: > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> senza tinc praticamente non c'e' connettivita' ( a > volte > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> va ma > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> roba > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> tipo 20k perche' sono un sacco di op alcuni dei quali > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> fanno > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> schifo...) > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> se invece faccio iperf passando per internet senza tinc > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> ottengo > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> risultati sempre sopra i 500KB/s > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 12:01, Darkman <dark...@darkman.it> > ha > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> scritto: > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Hai gia controllato i valori tra le 2 pico con e > senza > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > tinc? > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 11:45, Gioacchino Mazzurco > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > ha scritto: > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> iperf -c su computer che usa una picostation come > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> gateway -> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Picostation con tinc <- adsl 8 megabit -> iperf > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> --server su > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> eigenlab.org > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Il 03 luglio 2011 11:33, Darkman < > dark...@darkman.it> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> ha > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> scritto: > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > 100kbps mi pare davvero troppo poco anche per > quelle > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > cessonanocpu. > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Come li hai ottenuti sti valori? > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Il giorno 03 luglio 2011 11:10, Gioacchino > Mazzurco > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > <gmazzurc...@gmail.com> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > ha scritto: > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Ciao a tutti! > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Facendo dei test mi sono accorto che le vpn con > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> tinc > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> installato > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> sui > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> nodi ci vanno max a 100k anche se la banda > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> dell'adsl e' > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> molta > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> di > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> piu'... ho cominciato a cercare ed ho letto che > la > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> causa > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> e' > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> probabilmente la CPU che non ce la fa a fare > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encryption > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> decryption > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> piu' velocemente di cosi' > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> leggendo il man di tinc ho trovato questo > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Cipher = cipher (blowfish) > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> The symmetric cipher algorithm used > to > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encrypt > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> UDP > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> packets. Any cipher supported by OpenSSL is > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> recognised. > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Fur†> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> thermore, specifying "none" will turn > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> off > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> packet > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encryption. It is best to use only those ciphers > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> which > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> support > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> CBC mode. > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> mettendo none dovrebbe essere disabilitata l' > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> encryption e > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> quindi > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> avere piu' banda, il meccanismo degli host con il > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> file con > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> la > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> chiave > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> pubblica continua a funzionare disabilitando la > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> cifratura, > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> e > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> soprattutto bastera' aggiungere quell'opzione li > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> oppure > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> bisogna > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> cambiare altre conf? > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> >> >>> > Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> >> >>> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> >> >>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> >> >>> Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> >> >>> Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> >> >>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> >> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> >> Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> > Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> >> Wireless mailing list > >> >>> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > _______________________________________________ > >> >>> > Wireless mailing list > >> >>> > Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>> Wireless mailing list > >> >>> Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >>> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Antonio Quartulli > >> >> > >> >> ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. > >> >> Ernesto "Che" Guevara > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Wireless mailing list > >> >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> >> > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wireless mailing list > >> Wireless@ml.ninux.org > >> http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wireless mailing list > > Wireless@ml.ninux.org > > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@ml.ninux.org > http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@ml.ninux.org http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless