I just ran into the same issue, sad as it may be I don't think it will be a huge issue given the throughput and latency of the X520 =D. I'm running the same setup. You should still be able to use QOS/Traffic Shaping on your switch if it supports it and still reap some benefits.

@zwck said in Best way to reduce game latency: So after reading the latest posts in the other coddle thread, and if someone else has the same/similar issues. My reason for having shaping issues with fq_codle (downloads crashing) was promiscuous mode on the NIC, this automatically activates when ntopng package is installed (duh). Turning that package off leads to everything running as expected. @tman222 Thanks again for your help. [image: 34647312.png] Hi @zwck - great to hear you got things up and running! I'm a little surprised that this was the problem. I also use ntopng on my pfSense box and have not experienced these issues. Maybe it's a difference in the hardware we are using? In any case, thanks for following up and sharing what solved the issues for you.

For people that want it in the UI, why don't you take this code, apply it, and test it? Then you can report back (including bugs) That will give it much more chance to be included.

Not really, no. I don't currently have it set up in my current environment. I can tell you to go through the HFSC wizard with as minimal options as possible. You should end up with a basic shaper with 2 LANs, and some firewall rules. You need to trim the basic shaper down to only two "internet" queues (one per LAN), and have those same two queues on the WAN. Then in the Firewall floating rules, remove all of the shaping-related firewall rules, and make two new ones (one for each LAN network) and put that traffic into it's respective queue.

Here is some illustration of my still existing problem. [image: 1529955688726-network-resized.png] How can I limit this that all network never go over 25mbit? [image: 1529954855023-shaping-resized.jpg] The 25000 shown was just a test... there is now a 20000.

This is cisco link: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/quality-of-service-qos/qos-policing/19645-policevsshape.html

You need to use limiters to limit ingress on the WAN. Shaping can only limit egress.

@jimp @mupppet Thank you. After more research, I don't think this will be viable to replace the routers I am currently using as I need to be able to set TOS bits on certain traffic also. Thank you for the assistance in any case.

@areynot Are you using queues under your limiters? I believe that you want one or more upload queues with the source mask set to /32 and one or more download queues with the destination mask set to /32. My understanding - and it may be flawed - is that doing so will result in each host on your LAN being assigned one upload queue and one download queue. So consider the simplest case where you make one download queue for your download limiter and one upload queue for your upload limiter, and then just assign every host on your LAN to use these queues. If you have N hosts on your network, then the most active queues you should have at any given time is N download queues and N upload queues, and your download and upload bandwidth should be shared roughly evenly across them. At a very basic level, though, limiters (pipes) establish a cap on your bandwidth, but queues assigned to those limiters determine how that bandwidth is shared among multiple hosts.

@oguruma As with many things with computers, FILTER the Backblaze traffic and place it on a low priority queue. How exactly filter? find out what UNIQUE about this Backblaze thing, uses a special port? writing to a fixed WAN IP? FTP protocol? etc-etc-etc.

@areynot That's a tough call, since that's right on the edge of where the conventional wisdom seems to say that it matters. Setting the quantum lower gives an advantage to smaller packets, so I think the idea is that UDP traffic (like VoIP) will end up with a de facto higher priority. In practice, I'd be surprised if you could notice the difference. If I were you, with a symmetric 50Mbps connection, I'd probably be inclined to just leave the quantum at its default setting. But it's easy to try both and see if it makes any detectable difference too.

@harvy66 Thank you everyone, I now think the LImiter function is not working because the default gateway is the primary router and there are static routes to the second for inter branch traffic. Some how, that process allows the traffic to bypass the Limiter rule on the LAN port on the 2nd router. I will change the default gateway to the 2nd router and see if the Limiter kicks in correctly. Very Strange behavior!!

i am getting this error when i try to selsct 1 wan and 1 lan and i am not being select WAN (the PPPoE interface) as WAN. ×The specified number of connections is greater than the number of ALTQ-capable assigned interfaces!”.

Thanks ! seems to work good.