Flent-users discussion archives
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net>
To: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Cc: flent-users <flent-users@flent.org>
Subject: Re: [Flent-users] total throughput for rrul test on WiFi
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:58:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <46650F4E-8388-4915-9FF0-4594EB663EB7@heistp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9FA3B883-5147-485B-A866-7FCA27217E83@gmx.de>



> On Jun 26, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Pete,
> 
>> On Jun 26, 2018, at 00:40, Pete Heist <pete@heistp.net> wrote:
>> 
>> The rrul test over a point-to-point WiFi link cuts the total TCP throughput considerably below that of rrul_be. For example, on an 802.11n 20MHz MCS 15 link:
>> 
>> rrul_be: ~90mbit
>> rrul: ~30-45mbit
> 
> 	I believe this is simply showing the cost of using the non-aggregating AC_VO that also has an advantage of getting airtime, using that will considerably lower the achievable goodput over the wifi channel. Add to this that with RRUL both ends will send traffic that should be classified AC_VO and the half-duplex nature of current wifi specs and there might simply be much less total goodput available than one would fancy…

Understood...I’m not surprised by the result- it was mainly a lead in to the next part...

> 
>> I think this came up before, but could the standard rrul test be exceeding the 802.11e spec in terms of how much bandwidth it's using for some access categories?
> 
> 	Is there a standard for this?

I should’ve written that more clearly, but that’s what I’m not sure of. I thought I remembered Toke saying before that we may be exceeding some limits with the rrul test on WiFi, but I can’t recall exactly or find a reference to any.

In any case, I won’t treat rrul results as a real-world example of traffic for WiFi. Perhaps there’s an argument to be made that the rrul test should have (or allow) bitrate limits on individual flows, but this opens up more discussion about what constitutes a real-world test that may never fully result in something better than actually doing a real-world test… :)


_______________________________________________
Flent-users mailing list
Flent-users@flent.org
http://flent.org/mailman/listinfo/flent-users_flent.org

      reply	other threads:[~2018-06-26  8:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-25 22:40 Pete Heist
2018-06-26  8:40 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-06-26  8:58   ` Pete Heist [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.flent.org/postorius/lists/flent-users.flent.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=46650F4E-8388-4915-9FF0-4594EB663EB7@heistp.net \
    --to=pete@heistp.net \
    --cc=flent-users@flent.org \
    --cc=moeller0@gmx.de \
    --subject='Re: [Flent-users] total throughput for rrul test on WiFi' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox