Limiter with Burst or similar solution needed
-
xbipin - I just committed a fix for that: https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/f1a17b1a085ca65fafbe28e7c36cf9fc0018f2b0
https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/e43fa2ac995158553a47a0169bfd4946fe44a81b
https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/c32e058108193d17da7085623775c94d21a8bd96 -
i quiet dont understand how this burst thing works, firstly, after the patch can we set a burst as zero or blank and secondly if burst is set to 1mb and the pipe also to 1mb and the link supports 2mb then how would it actually work?
-
Burst is an amount of data, it is not a rate
Setting a burst of blank/0 is OK and what most people will do to not allow bursting.
If you have a 1Mbit/s limit and a 1MB burst, then the user will get 1MB of data at full speed, then be limited to 1Mbit/s.
In this example, with no burst set, the user will be limited to 1Mbit/s at all times.
-
so wouldnt it be better to put some description on that page saying burst is actual data and not rate and secondly the rules.limiter file shows me this
pipe 1 config bw 480Kb burst 480Kb pipe 3 config bw 400Kb burst 400Kbisnt the burst supposed to be KB and not Kb and also the interface doesnt allow to specify the unit separately for rate and burst
-
so wouldnt it be better to put some description on that page saying burst is actual data and not rate and secondly the rules.limiter file shows me this
pipe 1 config bw 480Kb burst 480Kb pipe 3 config bw 400Kb burst 400Kbisnt the burst supposed to be KB and not Kb and also the interface doesnt allow to specify the unit separately for rate and burst
The description could be better, yes. I don't know about the ipfw syntax.
-
Has anyone been able to make burst work as expected? Speed tests have not shown evidence of the bursting parameter on the child queues in my config. My current assumptions are that either the "pipe_idle_time" is impossibly low as burst values many orders of magnitude higher produce no results and/or the burst only applies to the first packet sent through an idle link. (I took a quick glance at the current dummynet source, I have limited understanding of C/C++ syntax at present.) Some online have suggested changing the kern.hz parameter in /boot/loader.conf (/boot/loader.conf.local). Additionally, would an expire of 1 cause a link to never be considered idle as it is removed so quickly (net.inet.ip.dummynet.expire=1). What do you guys think?
pipe 1 config bw 14Mb burst 80Mb queue 1 config pipe 1 mask dst-ip6 /128 dst-ip 0xffffffff queue 2 config pipe 1 mask dst-ip6 /128 dst-ip 0xffffffff queue 3 config pipe 1 mask dst-ip6 /128 dst-ip 0xffffffff pipe 2 config bw 2.5Mb burst 40Mb queue 4 config pipe 2 mask src-ip6 /128 src-ip 0xffffffff queue 5 config pipe 2 mask src-ip6 /128 src-ip 0xffffffff queue 6 config pipe 2 mask src-ip6 /128 src-ip 0xffffffff*bw values are half of ISP provided bandwidth.
Edit: Burst does work, but I can only prove it at a 'bw' of 25Kb using ping…
-
foxale08 did you ever get any further with this, I am seeing exactly the same results as you with regards to the burst setting.
Thanks
-
The burst setting will not be applied unless the queue is congested.
So unless you fill the pipe you will not see the effect of bursting.
-
Thanks Ermal. Am I correct in saying then that if I use the settings in the attached screen shot each ip address using more than 2mb of bandwidth (i.e. congesting the queue) will be allowed to burst to the max bandwidth available on the interface until it has passed 10mb of data and then it will drop back to the 2mb rate. In real world use should this not mean that if I run a speedtest from say speedtest.net I should see it burst above 2mb then back equally if I run jperf there should be an initial burst followed by a consistent 2mb.
Many thanks
-
It is per session.
So you have to congest the link with bittorrent or similar and then run speed test.
Probably there you will see the burst. -
Burst setting does not work.
I've set up a limiter with bw 2Mb and 20MB burst, however didnt see any initial burst, bw limited at 2Mb all the time since start.
I wonder if Ermal did any test at all using the burst setting, or have just assumed the other users got it all wrong. -
It seems this is getting a trend in this forum about accusing people of implementation.
Good luck with it since you earned my silence.
-
Can't believe no one here can test and verify that the burst setting in LIMITER pipes is NOT working!
Yet the updates keep mentioning this feature…@ermal:
It is per session.
So you have to congest the link with bittorrent or similar and then run speed test.
Probably there you will see the burst.Here's the official FreeBSD documentation about this setting, no mention whatsoever about "link congestion":
burst size
If the data to be sent exceeds the pipe's bandwidth limit (and
the pipe was previously idle), up to size bytes of data are
allowed to bypass the dummynet scheduler, and will be sent as
fast as the physical link allows. Any additional data will be
transmitted at the rate specified by the pipe bandwidth. The
burst size depends on how long the pipe has been idle; the effec-
tive burst size is calculated as follows: MAX( size , bw * pipe_idle_time).Instead, it states that there will be a burst only if the pipe was idle (which makes sense), instead of congested.
Note: I'm using pfsense 2.1.4 - i386 version.
-
We are seeing the same issue of the burst parameter being ignored.
100mbit pipe. Limiting to 12mbit per session with a 20 in the burst field. All sessions limited to 12mbit each. I have even tried a 9999 in the burst field with no result. Turning off the limiter I see a full 94mbit.
I really wish this feature worked as advertised it would be a huge win for us.
-
The burst parameter is in bytes transferred, it's not a bandwidth value. You have to put 10000000 for a 10 MB burst at 100 mbps.
@mhohman:We are seeing the same issue of the burst parameter being ignored.
100mbit pipe. Limiting to 12mbit per session with a 20 in the burst field. All sessions limited to 12mbit each. I have even tried a 9999 in the burst field with no result. Turning off the limiter I see a full 94mbit.
I really wish this feature worked as advertised it would be a huge win for us.
-
Unfortunately even setting it to 9999999999999999999999 has no measurable difference.
I am seeing the following when I lookup diag –> limiter info:
Limiters: 00001: 6.200 Mbit/s 0 ms burst 1 q131073 50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65537 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail sched 65537 type FIFO flags 0x1 256 buckets 2 active mask: 0x00 0xffffffff/0x0000 -> 0x00000000/0x0000 BKT Prot ___Source IP/port____ ____Dest. IP/port____ Tot_pkt/bytes Pkt/Byte Drp 76 ip 10.200.0.194/0 0.0.0.0/0 5 377 0 0 0 218 ip 10.200.0.137/0 0.0.0.0/0 97 18132 0 0 0 00002: 12.000 Mbit/s 0 ms burst 19531250 k q131074 50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65538 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail sched 65538 type FIFO flags 0x1 256 buckets 16 active mask: 0x00 0xffffffff/0x0000 -> 0x00000000/0x0000 -
Yes, I've tried that also.
But unfortunately it seems no one responsible here seems to notice the problem.Unfortunately even setting it to 9999999999999999999999 has no measurable difference.
I am seeing the following when I lookup diag –> limiter info:
Limiters: 00001: 6.200 Mbit/s 0 ms burst 1 q131073 50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65537 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail sched 65537 type FIFO flags 0x1 256 buckets 2 active mask: 0x00 0xffffffff/0x0000 -> 0x00000000/0x0000 BKT Prot ___Source IP/port____ ____Dest. IP/port____ Tot_pkt/bytes Pkt/Byte Drp 76 ip 10.200.0.194/0 0.0.0.0/0 5 377 0 0 0 218 ip 10.200.0.137/0 0.0.0.0/0 97 18132 0 0 0 00002: 12.000 Mbit/s 0 ms burst 19531250 k q131074 50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65538 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail sched 65538 type FIFO flags 0x1 256 buckets 16 active mask: 0x00 0xffffffff/0x0000 -> 0x00000000/0x0000 -
I've noticed that the burst setting is no longer available on 2.3.4-RELEASE-p1. Will it come back in the future?
-
its not in 2.4.2 betas maybe open a ticket
-
It was removed because it is broken in dummynet and does not operate as expected. It never did work, as evidenced by all the complaints in this thread.
It isn't viable, so unless it gets changed upstream in FreeBSD, it won't be coming back.
