From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756860AbYEGEcW (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 00:32:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751904AbYEGEcF (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 00:32:05 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156]:20801 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750807AbYEGEcC (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 00:32:02 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=O0qb6xSu1ONP4ghGXcNi1MzRS3oXmYcDnqxrPEJGLB3UEyNbylSjxGEPmJJ8fCz2FsxoWExC+SX4N36gxC8hODwLgZ5QVaE8ob2mmY+3vJhyWO683j18ZY/ea7sU8sr7JvmUes8hJK2kS6O3VQqBA66YocxQGDlgjX7poFBvz/U= Message-ID: <18b669d80805062132m618e0e1fwf92bbb2ced393cb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 13:32:01 +0900 From: "Shigeo N" To: "=?UTF-8?Q?Ilpo_J=C3=A4rvinen?=" Subject: Re: XTP for 2.6.25 Cc: "Andi Kleen" , LKML , Netdev In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18b669d80804240314t7b2f6e4cpc9a9f2690c6d21b4@mail.gmail.com> <873apbijb9.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <18b669d80804240606n47854939x94278f8d974034c1@mail.gmail.com> <18b669d80804250059m793f3f56xc4fdb8bad949fa3@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by alpha.home.local id m474WUEB027534 I tested again on Linux 2.6.25 with TCP reordering patch.Of course, TCP performance was improved. Here is the result. case2-2) random delay (with TCP reordering patch) In this case, add a fixed amount of delay + 10% random delay by command, "tc change dev eth0 root netem delay 100ms 10ms 25%". fixed delay UDP/TCP/XTP throghput --------------------------------------- 10ms 88/85/92 Mbps 30ms 88/67/91 Mbps 50ms 88/58/89 Mbps 70ms 88/43/80 Mbps 100ms 88/26/66 Mbps case2) random delay (without TCP reordering patch) In this case, add a fixed amount of delay + 10% random delay by command, "tc change dev eth0 root netem delay 100ms 10ms 25%". fixed delay UDP/TCP/XTP throghput --------------------------------------- 10ms 88/80/92 Mbps 30ms 88/51/91 Mbps 50ms 88/41/89 Mbps 70ms 88/28/80 Mbps 100ms 88/19/66 Mbps case1) fixed delay In this case, just adds a fixed amount of delay to all packets going out by command, "tc qdisc add dev eth0 root netem delay 100ms". fixed delay UDP/TCP/XTP throghput --------------------------------------- 10ms 88/85/92 Mbps 30ms 88/70/91 Mbps 50ms 88/63/89 Mbps 70ms 88/52/84 Mbps 100ms 88/36/70 Mbps Thanks, On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Shigeo N wrote:>>> case2) random delay>>>> In this case, add a fixed amount of delay + 10% random delay by>> command, "tc change dev eth0 root netem delay 100ms 10ms 25%".>>>> Here is the result.>>>> fixed delay UDP/TCP/XTP throghput>> --------------------------------------->> 10ms 88/80/92 Mbps>> 30ms 88/51/91 Mbps>> 50ms 88/41/89 Mbps>> 70ms 88/28/80 Mbps>> 100ms 88/19/66 Mbps>>>> TCP's perfomance looks very poor when delay is long and variable.>> Where these results with 2.6.25 as well? ...John Heffner just couple of> days ago fixed reordering related problem in TCP (in case that netem> parametrization causes reordering), the fix is not even in 2.6.24.y, I> think...>> --> i.>{.n++%ݶw{.n+{G{ayʇڙ,jfhz_(階ݢj"mG?&~iOzv^m ?I