On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:21:14AM +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
Any data for others to check?
Nope, unfortunately these are customer networks, and I can't reveal data from that in public.
That's very, very unfortunate... and made my hair stand on end. It clashes/undermines a little with a point I love a lot about free software... Anyways, maybe that's not something to discuss on a mailing list.
Damn it, why don't we have the stupid hop count in the measurements from the last WBM? Would have been very easy to verify with that.
Maybe we could try using the WBM to transparently find better default values in the future (again; I remember that you had made nice graphs for the decision of having interface-alternating or interface-bonding as the default back then at WBMv3 in Italy - that was awesome!)?
But I can certainly explain how I tested: We were running Antonios throughput meter on these devices and saw some unusual slow throughput and too long paths (4 hops were 2 were possible). We then increase the hop penalty to the suggested value, and both the hopcount decreased and the throughput increase. We repeated that with other 6 networks and had either similar improvement or no change at all (since all hopcounts were already one).
What mcast-rate were you using? Will this make things worse for setups with a different mcast-rate?
Cheers, Simon
Cheers, Linus