netdev - Re: [Make-wifi-fast] OpenWRT wrong adjustment of fq_codel defaults (Was: [Codel] fq_codel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACiydbL_dfBU=8m=gSSiR6HwdVU+z2WMeQMjP+boNhGe19_7Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2016 11:26:16 +0300
From:	Roman Yeryomin <leroi.lists@...il.com>
To:	David Lang <david@...g.hm>
Cc:	Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>,
	make-wifi-fast@...ts.bufferbloat.net,
	Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
	ath10k <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"codel@...ts.bufferbloat.net" <codel@...ts.bufferbloat.net>,
	OpenWrt Development List <openwrt-devel@...ts.openwrt.org>,
	Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>
Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] OpenWRT wrong adjustment of fq_codel defaults
 (Was: [Codel] fq_codel_drop vs a udp flood)

On 16 May 2016 at 11:12, David Lang <david@...g.hm> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2016, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>
>> On 6 May 2016 at 22:43, Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.lists@...il.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6 May 2016 at 21:43, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.lists@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6 May 2016 at 15:47, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>> That is too low a limit, also, for normal use. And:
>>> for the purpose of this particular UDP test, flows 16 is ok, but not
>>> ideal.
>>
>>
>> I played with different combinations, it doesn't make any
>> (significant) difference: 20-30Mbps, not more.
>> What numbers would you propose?
>
>
> How many different flows did you have going at once? I believe that the
> reason for higher numbers isn't for throughput, but to allow for more flows
> to be isolated from each other. If you have too few buckets, different flows
> will end up being combined into one bucket so that one will affect the other
> more.

I'm testing with one flow, I never saw bigger performance with more
flows (e.g. -P8 to iperf3).

Regards,
Roman