@markn6262 May i ask for what use case do you need evenly shared bandwidth between IP's?
The solution you mentions with Codel/WFQ2+ doesn't care about the performance of individual applications, with that i mean every single IP is a queue/flow with that solution.
With fq-codel every connection established gets it's own queue/flow, depending on the limit of flows set in settings, which makes it able to prioritize latency sensitive traffic no matter what host it comes from and make sure that no host can starve the connection for bandwidth.
The point i am getting at is that trying to share bandwidth evenly between IP addresses doesn't guarantee optimal performance for low latency applications, fq-codel tries to, so when you are having several host trying to do large downloads they still get priority for other applications like VoIP, gaming or just streaming netflix if using fq-codel. The thing your going for was smart 15 years ago but only because there was nothing better.

@viktor_g Mbit default on "New Limiter" now, much appreciated.

Removing/renaming limiters fixed in upstream:
https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/3924

@discy Fixed in upstream: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/10660#note-8

@YossiZa said in Hi CPU usage when have high traffic:

E5-2680 v2

E5-2680 v2 has 40% more memory bandwidth. CPU usage is not just a metric of how hard a CPU is working, it's a metric of how many cycles the CPU is having to wait for work to be done. CPU bound work is as fast as the CPU can process it. But memory bound work has to wait for the memory to respond. If the memory is at its max, then the CPU will spend more time waiting not doing anything. The more cache can't hurt either. Fewer memory accesses required.

Thanks. Couldn't find a definitive answer to if and when the interface method could be usefull.

Unfortunately my question remains unanswered :).

We haven't got around to digging into that one yet, lots of other higher priorities.

@remlei said in Inaccessible pfsese web admin page when traffic shaping is enabled:

internet speed to compensate the congestion with the bandwidth.

You looking to mitigate the bufferbloat on WAN ?
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest

found this

Bandwidth (root queues)
The amount of bandwidth available on this interface in the outbound direction. For example, WAN-type interface root queues list upload speed. LAN-type interfaces list the sum total of all WAN interface download bandwidth.

https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/book/trafficshaper/advanced-customization.html

so set 32 Mbit on the WAN interface and 50mbit on LAN Interfaces.

These settings are not limiting the max bandwith in case I would get more bandwith, just used for the algorithm priorizing the packets, right?

Thanks! That worked for the ping issue.

I managed to get the traffic shaping queues to work by modifying the rules and setting the traffic to outbound and adding the codel queues to the in and out pipes and then I set the main CoDel Queue rule below the traffic shaping rules.

@daemonix you should see a difference in pfsense but i would use flent for testing just because it's easier and it utilizes download and upload at the same time.

@johnpoz Thanks. That proves your point about the missinformation out there and why it's a good thing that it's back on default.

Will give an update if my issues remain after what I did before and/or if I gathered more insights.

Vincent

@Gertjan Yes, the R6900 is from Netgear, and with ASUS-merlin firmware(not pfSense), but it is working great.

Jim, I installed cron and see this: /etc/rc.filter_configure_sync scheduled every 15 minutes, which you suggest in another thread is probably because of using a schedule.

So I guess if you use a schedule, Queue stats are cleared every 15 minutes.

Thanks,

-Steve