Re: Performance test for CUBIC in stable/14

Cheng Cui <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.freebsd.devel.net
Message-ID <CAGaXui+EYmRhOdwOqFRbVsboCkrrWmnHnWRSqsSAgzbn5ug6bg@mail.gmail.com>
The latency does not sound a problem to me. What is the performance of
TCP congestion control algorithm `newreno`?

In case you need to load `newreno` first.

cc@n1:~ % sudo kldload newreno

cc@n1:~ % sudo sysctl net.inet.tcp.cc.algorithm=newreno

net.inet.tcp.cc.algorithm: cubic -> newreno

cc@n1:~ %

And let me know the result of `newreno` vs. `cubic`, for example:
iperf3 -B ${src} --cport ${tcp_port} -c ${dst} -l 1M -t 20 -i 2 -VC newreno

cc

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:13 PM void <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 03:57:42PM -0400, Cheng Cui wrote:
> >What is the output from `ping` (latency) between these VMs?
>
> That test wasn't between VMs. It was from the vm with the patches to a
> workstation
> on the same switch.
>
> ping from the vm to the workstation:
>
> --- 192.168.1.232 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.643/0.796/0.870/0.070 ms
>
> ping from the vm with patches to an alpine linux vm on the same host:
>
> --- 192.168.1.65 ping statistics ---
> 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.734/0.859/0.963/0.073 ms
>
> --
>
>

-- 
Best Regards,
Cheng Cui
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.