On 07/03/2015, Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snipped and CC'd for again for record
>
> On 05/03/2015, Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2015, at 13:55 , Alan Jenkins
>> <alan.christopher.jenk...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/03/2015, Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm only shaping upload, because I can't measure any improvement
>>>>> from shaping download.
> [which seems kinda hopeful for the cause]
>
>>>> Interesting, in my case I need to shape both properly otherwise my
>>>> netperf-runner rrul test show too high latencies.
>
>>> Disregard, I suck. It's not "too high" for me, because I don't use
>>> anything like voip. But there is 10-20ms in it.
>>>
>>> Last time I gave up getting netperf to on debian (it just kept
>>> stalling out). I ran it on the router, maybe that screwed up the
>>> measurements. Now I have a Fedora to test with and sqm-scripts is
>>> definitely living up to the hype :)
>>>
>>> unshaped:
>>>
>>> 2015-03-05 12:16:06 Testing against netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4)
>>> with 5 simultaneous sessions while pinging 89.243.96.1 (60 seconds in
>>> each direction)
>>> .............................................................
>>> Download: 10.84 Mbps
>>> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>> Min: 21.100
>>> 10pct: 23.700
>>> Median: 34.700
>>> Avg: 34.536
>>> 90pct: 47.100
>>> Max: 54.400
>>>
>>>
>>> shaped 12500 (and I'm going to use 11500):
>>>
>>> Download: 10.14 Mbps
>>> Latency: (in msec, 61 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
>>> Min: 20.800
>>> 10pct: 21.400
>>> Median: 23.900
>>> Avg: 24.010
>>> 90pct: 26.100
>>> Max: 29.900
>>
>> If you install netperf-wrapper
>> (https://github.com/tohojo/netperf-wrapper)
>> and run a test like:
>> date ; ping -c 10 netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net ; ./netperf-wrapper --ipv4
>> -l
>> 300 -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net rrul -p all_scaled --disable-log -t
>> your_configuration_name_here
>>
>> you should be able to see even bigger improvements for shaped versus
>> unshaped (the rrul test will try to saturate both up and downlink, or use
>> /netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net to simultaneously load up
>> and downlink without netperf-wrapper) I expect almost orders of magnitude
>> improvements ;)
>
> I'm being pedantic here, but you're wrong :). netperf-runner only
> shows 5-7ms difference. That might be part of why I struggled to
> measure it last time.
>
Yeah, if you're pinging gstatic.com the test gets too noisy to trust
on it's own (pinging the first-hop router seems more stable though)
2015-03-07 19:40:18 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4
streams down and up while pinging gstatic.com. Takes about 30 seconds.
Download: 9.43 Mbps
Upload: 0.37 Mbps
Latency: (in msec, 32 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
Min: 24.000
10pct: 24.800
Median: 39.700
Avg: 41.422
90pct: 55.100
Max: 67.700
v.s. limited download
2015-03-07 19:42:08 Testing netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net (ipv4) with 4
streams down and up while pinging gstatic.com. Takes about 30 seconds.
Download: 8.25 Mbps
Upload: 0.4 Mbps
Latency: (in msec, 30 pings, 0.00% packet loss)
Min: 23.400
10pct: 24.900
Median: 38.200
Avg: 39.133
90pct: 53.500
Max: 76.800
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
