But that really only affects throughput. For internet connections routing can be different for IPv4 and IPv6 connections to the same servers, and sometimes one or the other has a shorter path with lower latency, but that really depends on the routing and hence is not a sign of one of the two IP versions being generally faster.
IMHO the argument for IPv6 is not "faster than IPv4" but really that for ~8000 million humans with probably more than a single device each IPv4's 4000 Million possible addresses are simply not enough, no ifs no buts...
Since that I didn't suffer any openwrt resets under load with SQM.
Results with SQM set à 2Gbps symmetric with queues=4 on each openwrt VM's nic (for network packet balancing between CPUs):
sending: don't know why the 4th core is unused viewed from openwrt VM !?!?!
if I take a look on the PVE box the load is fine:
receiving ... same problem:
If I remove the "queues=4" flag I have worst core balancing (on the VM) but more symmetrical iperf3 results:
on the PVE box ... looks good:
So far, so good
I won't do more tests on this side (because I don't need for my use case, because during these tests the box draws 18~20W instead of 11~12W, because CPU temp is 70°C instead of 45~50°C ....)
I hope this may have helped those who asked
Traffic shapers like the one in cake are quite CPU hungry, and I are serialized behind a single lock, so at best each sqm instance runs on a single core... if we could off load the traffic shaper we might be better off on the qdisc side.
I226v has better perf than I225v b3 (only my experience with 2 boxes)
The N5105 can do SQM with the default configuration at just over 1Gbps but not much more ... at least on a PVE VM (and I don't want to reinstall barebone to test)
routing/switching at 2.5Gbps is doable without SQM (but +10W to achieve that)
Basically for SQM @1Gbps:
Classically: Routing + DNS + DHCP ...
11~13W idling & 18~21W loaded (1x8GB + NVME PCIe 2X [Kingston A1000 256GB]) depending on number of cables plugged in. Arround 9W with PVE or Ubuntu only running (OpenWRT standalone or in PVE seems to consumme a lot of W ... don't know why)
45/65°C after spending 20 min on the machine to pass a metal file and apply a better thermal paste. Temp takes a long time to drop (fanless in my case)
post has a link to a video of power consumption of i226v nic being driven to limit.
Unit is currently stuffed with a 480GB Corsair MP510, and 2x8G-2400 Corsair, waiting on a single 16G-3200 to replace the 2 SODIMMS. I did notice with the latest BIOS a slight drop in idle consumption, but under load it tops out much higher, currently working on getting a fan into the unit.
I assume both meters are wrong, but by way of comparison, this meter on a idle mamba (WRT1900AC), both radios disabled, sits at ~12.7w.
Recently, some UP masters reported that the old version of BIOS running score data is relatively low.
This updated version removes the power consumption wall limit.
Since there is no power consumption limit, when running at full speed,
please enhance the cooling work by yourself.
After all, this is only a fanless.
It's a mini-host that can't be compared with a desktop computer.
You can play on the bios with 'power limit' and 'platform limit' (PL1 & PL2) for that
Wow... Quite the test session(s) I provoked!! Wasn't expecting such detail, and an all-nighter! You really went above and beyond, vevere!!
Probably any time there's a big mismatch in speeds, networks bottling into/funneling out... there's potential for flow problems...
I noticed you were running 21.02.3. I'm not sure where along the way, but now that I've updated to 22.03.0, I see a "Intel 2.5G" driver listed in the log on my Zotac box with the Realtec chips. There might be a driver update more specific to your 2.5Gbit chips. Or maybe this came out back in 21.x.x.x sometime? Might be something to check for, when convenient.
Edit: I looked, seems like there was an addition on 6-28, for x86, so post 22.03.0-rc5 would seem to have it, but not in 21.02.3.... some Realtek 2.5Gb support was already in there before that time...
Did some poking around with my system... I also suffer from the "too many experiments, the family comes after me with pitchforks" situation... so I feel your pain... I have a cable connection of 1Gb/35Mb, and as yet don't have a lot of hardware set up to do "real" testing, as well as everything is 1Gbe.
Have some Speedtest-netperf quick tests I did against my internet connection last night, which maybe tells me I have some issues... My machine is lowlier than yours though (N3450, Realtek 1Gbe) and can just handle my connection with SQM. Some odd behavior, as well. I'll post some of that later.
if I replace the 240G with another Kingston A1000 but 480G then the consumption... drops by 2W (9W) amazing!
if I don't run the OpenWRT VMs then the consumption... drops again by 2W (7W), again amazing!
I tried running other VMs instead of OpenWRT:
a simple Debian live CD under Proxmox
an Ubuntu VM with graphical environment
an even an install of Pop OS present on the 480G SSD before reinstalling Proxmox on it
whatever the case, the consumption drops to ... 7W (6.9 exactly but who cares) idle instead of 9W when OpenWRT is running
the choice of SSD is crucial (even in the same family, so it's impossible to anticipate and we can only learn from the experiences of others)
OpenWRT consumes a lot on this CPU, both installed directly on the machine or in a VM.
I don't know if I should open another post on this subject to try to understand why OpenWRT consumes 2W more than any other OS I have tried on this hardware and if solutions exist to lower this number.
having equipment on 24/7 that consumes an additional 2W does not appeal to me fundamentally, neither for my budget nor for the operating temperature of the electronics on the long term.
Very interesting findings, that's about 30% more power on OpenWrt though, can't help but wonder if it's the default govenor is keeping the CPU scaled a bit higher than your average Linux distro. Higher clocks sometimes help with latency though. I'm wondering if you tried a build off the master branch which uses kernel 5.15 now if you might see better results there.