Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 17:03:08 -0500 From: Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> To: David <2yt@gmx.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Slow WAN traffic to FreeBSD hosts but not to Linux hosts---how to debug/fix? Message-ID: <A3E14937-0CC7-4C4F-ABAE-7DA37CDD7BE7@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <ee8df505-cd76-41fb-25a6-cb5c67dc5d8c@gmx.com> References: <95EDCFCA-7E3F-458F-85A6-856D606B9D98@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> <tr9g44$d3l$1@ciao.gmane.io> <CANwXMPNBkWQHzT4f%2Bjy0RV1gK7R6nJOWYsG5NZTf9RadRDNfXg@mail.gmail.com> <ee8df505-cd76-41fb-25a6-cb5c67dc5d8c@gmx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 31, 2023, at 10:39 AM, David <2yt@gmx.com> wrote: > On 1/30/23 16:30, Matt Garber wrote: >> > Any help/insight is gratefully appreciated. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Paul. >> > >> sysctl net.inet.tcp.cc.algorithm=3Dhtcp >> I would set "htcp" on the server and home computer to improve >> through in >> your type of situation. >> There may be other FreeBSD sysctls that have bad defaults in this = scenario and could be better tuned, but I doubt changing the CC = algorithm at this point is the problem =E2=80=94 at least not so much a = problem that=E2=80=99s causing throughput to be reduced so drastically. = Happy to be wrong if that does help things quickly and easily, though. >> (Since OP mentioned that FreeBSD CC was set to CUBIC, that would = match what the Linux boxes are using by default, too, unless they=E2=80=99= ve been changed to something newer like BBR=E2=80=A6 so seems like CUBIC = *should* be performing fine on this WAN link, and the difference is = something else.) >> =E2=80=94Matt >=20 > I love FreeBSD and very much appreciate the efforts of those people = much smarter. But... I don't think the defaults get enough testing in = real world conditions. >=20 > I came across Paul's issue several years ago and spent a few a hours = testing and found the defaults performed very well on a LAN but could = perform terribly on a many hop WAN. HTCP performs marginally worse on a = LAN or close WAN connection, but much much better on a many hop WAN = connection. >=20 [[...]] > In my opinion HTCP is a better default for the current state of the = internet. It looks like they already changed the default from NewReno to CUBIC in = FreeBSD-CURRENT. I agree with your observation about the defaults vs. real world = conditions. As you observed, I also get great performance in a = high-speed LAN, but not so much in a many-hop WAN to an asymmetric ISP = connection. I actually started down this rabbit hole when I noticed I couldn't = manage more than about 3--4 MB in a single stream and thought my ISP was = throttling me. But then I noticed I would actually get fast/maximum = speeds, e.g., when doing "brew upgrade -v" and Homebrew would be = downloading packages, and so then wondered whether they were throttling = non-HTTP traffic. That led me to discover that even HTTP downloads were = slow to the FreeBSD servers I use remotely at $JOB and, furthermore, = that all traffic to Linux systems I use at $JOB didn't seem to be = throttled or incapable of getting maximum single stream bandwidth = matching my ISP's quoted speeds. :-\ I accept that this may just be a peculiarity of my local and remote = setup, and so appreciate the help and suggestions people have offered in = trying to debug the issue. Cheers, Paul.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A3E14937-0CC7-4C4F-ABAE-7DA37CDD7BE7>