I have yet to undertake formal testing.
I moved from using a Buffalo WMBR-G300 running Barrier Breaker to a
bridged device when I broke the former tying to install Homenet.
I omitted to recraft the cake script I was using to incorporate the
correct interface, now pppoe-wan, and was unaware of the error until
today, a fortnight later.
I am therefore not expecting significant improvements.
On 10/07/15 16:19, Alan Jenkins wrote:
I'm glad to hear there's a working version (even if it's not in the
current build :).
Do you have measurable improvements with overhead configured (v.s.
unconfigured)?
I've used netperfrunner from CeroWrtScripts, e.g.
sh netperfrunner.sh -H netperf-eu.bufferbloat.net -p $ISP_ROUTER
I believe accounting for overhead helps on this two-way test, because
a) it saturates the uplink b) about half that bandwidth is tiny ack
packets (depending on bandwidth asymmetry). And small packets have
proportionally high overhead.
(But it seems to only make a small difference for me, which always
surprises Seb).
Alan
On 10/07/15 15:52, Fred Stratton wrote:
You are absolutely correct.
I tried both a numeric overhead value, and alternatively 'pppoe-vcmux'
and 'ether-fcs' in the build I crafted based on r46006, which is lupin
undeclared version 2. Everything works as stated.
On lupin undeclared version 4, the current release based on r46117, the
values were not recognised.
Thank you.
I had cake running on a Lantiq ADSL gateway running the same r46006
build. Unfortunately this was bricked by attempts to get homenet
working, so I have nothing to report about gateway usage at present.
On 10/07/15 13:57, Jonathan Morton wrote:
You're already using correct syntax - I've written it to be quite
lenient and use sensible defaults for missing information. There are
several sets of keywords and parameters which are mutually orthogonal,
and don't depend on each other, so "besteffort" has nothing to do with
"overhead" or "atm".
What's probably happening is that you're using a slightly old version
of the cake kernel module which lacks the overhead parameter entirely,
but a more up to date tc which does support it. We've seen this
combination crop up ourselves recently.
- Jonathan Morton
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
