From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 30 10:14:33 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7DB16A401 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:14:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1A813C45E for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:14:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2UAEX3Q078495; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:14:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id l2UAEWSL078494; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:14:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:14:32 -0700 From: "'Luigi Rizzo'" To: Dave Raven Message-ID: <20070330031432.A78468@xorpc.icir.org> References: <015d01c77297$953ba250$bfb2e6f0$@za.net> <20070330005916.A76128@xorpc.icir.org> <01a501c772ab$1dcbd460$59637d20$@za.net> <20070330021442.A77652@xorpc.icir.org> <01be01c772b2$91e64180$b5b2c480$@za.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <01be01c772b2$91e64180$b5b2c480$@za.net>; from dave@raven.za.net on Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:02:28PM +0200 Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using "delay" to emulate a satellite link X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:14:34 -0000 On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:02:28PM +0200, Dave Raven wrote: > Hi Luigi, > Firstly sorry for the confusion - I mean even if I change it to > 250/250 (e.g. 500ms of delay) I can't reach 1mbps of throughput. Is it a > definite that because of the latency (if its bad enough) you can never > achieve full throughput - because of TCP ack delays? > > Your 65kbytes/1000ms = 512kbit/s calculation - is that 65k from the > send/recv space ? The maximum is 65k correct ? Does that mean that on a > given 1000ms link you CANNOT achieve more than 512kbps ? yes this is basic networking stuff - for a window-based protocol the max throughtput is 1 window per rtt, where the window is upper bounded by the min of socket buffer, tcp buffers, negotiated tcp window luigi > Thanks so much for the help - I know its going a bit off topic > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: 'Luigi Rizzo' [mailto:rizzo@icir.org] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:15 AM > To: Dave Raven > Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Using "delay" to emulate a satellite link > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 11:09:07AM +0200, Dave Raven wrote: > > Hi Luigi, > > Thanks for the reply -- these are my related send/recv space > > settings on all of the boxes involved -- > > > > net.local.stream.sendspace: 65535 > > net.local.stream.recvspace: 65535 > > net.local.dgram.recvspace: 4096 > > net.inet.tcp.sendspace: 65535 > > net.inet.tcp.recvspace: 65535 > > net.inet.udp.recvspace: 65535 > > net.inet.raw.recvspace: 8192 > > > > What I have done is put 3 freebsd units plugged into eath other with > > crossover cables, like so -- > > > > BOX 1 ----- BOX 2 ----- BOX 3 > > > > Box 3 has a 500meg /dev/urandom text file on a webserver. Box 1 wget's > that > > file. Box 2 has the ipfw delay setup. If I ping from BOX 1 to BOX 3 I get > > +/-1000ms of delay. When I download I get less than half of the link speed > > (1meg limited by box 2). > > which is fine - you get 65kbytes/1000ms = 512kbit/s > > > The latency directly affects the throughput - but my question is this -- > If > > I download something from a web server on the internet that I have 500ms > of > > delay to, I can get 1meg (on a 1meg link). When I emulate that delay with > > dummynet I can't -- is there a difference in the type of delay > experienced? > > well, it's twice as much in your case - your ping time is 1000ms instead > of 500ms > > cheers > luigi > > > Really anyone can - most people have delay of at least 300-500ms to remote > > webservers (e.g. from me in Africa to America); but it doesn't hamper > > download speed? > > > > Thanks again > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Luigi Rizzo [mailto:rizzo@icir.org] > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:59 AM > > To: Dave Raven > > Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org > > Subject: Re: Using "delay" to emulate a satellite link > > > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:49:19AM +0200, Dave Raven wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > I've been looking at the ipfw (dummynet) ability to do delay and > > > have a few questions - I hope this is the right list. I want to simulate > a > > > 1000ms RTT on a satellite link. To do that I've created an inbound and > > > outbound pipe and given each 1mb and 500ms of delay. > > > > > > However, I'm unable to get anywhere near 1mb of throughput on it until I > > > drop the delay. I believe I understand the slowdown due to the latency, > > but > > > my question is this - an http download through a 500ms "emulated" link > > > that's running 1 mb can't get 1mb, yet if I download over the internet > on > > a > > > site that's pinging 500ms, it goes 1mb > > > > > > Whats the difference between dummynet delay and real life distance > delay? > > > > first make sure you are not comparing apples and oranges. > > what sender and receiver are you using to get 1Mbit/s on a 500ms link ? > > and, are you sure that if you ping from the source to the destination > > you are using for your tests with dummynet you get the delay > > you are expecting (1000ms as you configured it, and not 2000 ?) > > > > 500ms of delay on each pipe give at least 1000ms total > > delay (assuming you have not misconfigured your dummynet box). > > In order to fill the pipe you need at least 1Mbit worth of data > > in the socket buffer/tcp window - the default on FreeBSD is > > 32kbytes sending, 64Kbytes receiving, so you won't be > > able to achieve that unless you increase these two sysctls: > > > > net.inet.tcp.sendspace: 32768 > > net.inet.tcp.recvspace: 65536 > > > > if you draw the bw vs delay that you achieve on your connection > > you will likely find that either the limit is your socket > > buffers or a misconfigured ipfw which results in twice the delay > > > > cheers > > luigi