> On Nov 27, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Pete Heist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> * And then above 200mbit, fq_codel performs considerably better than cake at
> the 32/32 flow tests. At 900mbit, UDP/ping is 1.1ms for fq_codel and 10ms for
> cake. TCP RTT is ~6.5ms for fq_codel and ~12ms for cake. Dave’s earlier
> explanation probably applies here: "Since fq_codel supports superpackets and
> cake peels them, we have a cpu and latency hit that originates from that.
> Also the code derived algorithm in cake differs quite significantly from
> mainline codel, and my principal gripe about it has been that it has not been
> extensively tested against higher delays."
>
> http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/32flows_eg_fq_codel_900mbit/index.html
>
> <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/32flows_eg_fq_codel_900mbit/index.html>
> http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/32flows_eg_cakeeth_900mbit/index.html
>
> <http://www.drhleny.cz/bufferbloat/cake/round1/32flows_eg_cakeeth_900mbit/index.html>
I would not be surprised to find out that this result was also due to lack of
CPU, since there’s a steady degradation in Cake’s performance above 200mbit.
Next time I’ll try 8/8 flows in addition.
_______________________________________________
Cake mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
