CoDel - How to use
-
CoDel's default "target/interval" values should be fixed in 2.2.3. Dave mentioned earlier that the "target" is pretty good at dynamically adjusting, so the fix probably has little effect in that area.
The "interval" is more vital and is noted in the IETF draft as being the only parameter that is required for CoDel to to function, so perhaps changing from a value of 5ms to a more optimal value of 100ms will improve our CoDel experience. :)
Disappointingly, I tried loading up a CODELQ queue in 2.2.3, and I still got the old values… Either the install needs to be fresh or my patch is shit and needs more work. See if it is fixed on any of your 2.2.3 setups.
I did a fresh install of 2.2.3 and the target/interval are still inverted.
[2.2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfSense.localdomain]/root: pfctl -vs queue | grep -i codel altq on em0 codel( target 50 interval 5) bandwidth 600Kb tbrsize 1500 altq on em1 codel( target 50 interval 5) bandwidth 6Mb tbrsize 6000Fudge…
Thank you for letting me know. I will get them to revert my commits.
How can a little fix be so illusive?
Why must you be so confusing, pfSense-tools!?
-
CoDel's default "target/interval" values should be fixed in 2.2.3. Dave mentioned earlier that the "target" is pretty good at dynamically adjusting, so the fix probably has little effect in that area.
The "interval" is more vital and is noted in the IETF draft as being the only parameter that is required for CoDel to to function, so perhaps changing from a value of 5ms to a more optimal value of 100ms will improve our CoDel experience. :)
Disappointingly, I tried loading up a CODELQ queue in 2.2.3, and I still got the old values… Either the install needs to be fresh or my patch is shit and needs more work. See if it is fixed on any of your 2.2.3 setups.
I did a fresh install of 2.2.3 and the target/interval are still inverted.
[2.2.3-RELEASE][admin@pfSense.localdomain]/root: pfctl -vs queue | grep -i codel altq on em0 codel( target 50 interval 5) bandwidth 600Kb tbrsize 1500 altq on em1 codel( target 50 interval 5) bandwidth 6Mb tbrsize 6000Fudge…
Thank you for letting me know. I will get them to revert my commits.
How can a little fix be so illusive?
Why must you be so confusing, pfSense-tools!?
It looks like you're doing it right but the patch hasn't been merged. I've created a pull request on github to do the same thing, let's see what happens
Do you know why the current codel_alloc(100, 5, 0) results in values of target 50 interval 5? target 5 interval 50 would be better but I dunno where the value of 50 is coming from.
-
Was never fixed AFAICT? https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/4692
-
Was never fixed AFAICT? https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/4692
Indeed, has anyone tried the patch? I don't really want to have to build pfsense in order to test it, that's a lot of repos to clone…
edit: PR has been merged, new values should be applied in 2.2.4 or anything built from here on...
-
I wish this could be set via config instead of compile time. One problem at a time though, ehh?
50/5 seems to be working well for me right now. I guess I'll see how my bufferbloat is affected once this change finally makes it. I'm getting 0ms of bufferbloat and full throughput already. According to DSLReports, my bloat can spike, but rarely. More of an issue when doing 32 upload streams.
-
Was never fixed AFAICT? https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/4692
https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense-tools/commit/3108a902bd816036a3abffd3ec669767140891a7
I dunno. I am unsure of many things. :(
I probably should have updated the redmine submission. The redmine patch was a initial code to show what I had found, hooefulky to help a dev pinpoint the problem.
The github patches were the best I could do, but I should probably stop trying to patch pfSense considering that I cannot build pfSense to test my code. :(
-
So this is from the latest nightly:
[2.2.4-DEVELOPMENT][admin@pfSense.localdomain]/root: pfctl -vs queue altq on em0 codel( target 50 interval 100) bandwidth 600Kb tbrsize 1500Interval successfully changed, now we just have to figure out where the target of 50 is coming from….
Edit: I just set the 'queue limit' to 25 in the GUI and my target is now 25.... Victory?
Edit2: From 2.2.4 19/07/2015 nightly, with queue limit set to 5:
[2.2.4-DEVELOPMENT][admin@pfSense.localdomain]/root: pfctl -vs queue altq on em1 codel( target 5 interval 100) bandwidth 6Mb tbrsize 6000 [ pkts: 85 bytes: 9938 dropped pkts: 0 bytes: 0 ] [ qlength: 0/ 50 ]So it wasn't anything I did yesterday that fixed it, but it does seem to be fixed/workable in 2.2.4
-
If qlimit is 0, it defaults to 50, and codel gets the (initial?) target value from qlimit.
-
If qlimit is 0, it defaults to 50, and codel gets the (initial?) target value from qlimit.
is qlimit the queue length, or something else entirely?
-
-
If qlimit is 0, it defaults to 50, and codel gets the (initial?) target value from qlimit.
is qlimit the queue length, or something else entirely?
qlimit is the queue length which becomes useless when codel is axtive, since codel dynamically controls queue length (AQM).
So when using codel the 'queue limit' setting seems to change the target instead… handy, but not very obvious..
Thanks! -
Yeah, it is pretty confusing but I'll take CoDel however I can get it. :)
Ermal ported himself, iirc. Ahead of the curve, that guy! :)I still dunno how to view or set codel's parameters when it is a sub-discipline though. Default or gtfo, I suppose…
-
The whole target qlimit thing applies to CoDel for both the scheulder and the child discipline?
Do you know if the interval changes? The interval is supposed to be 20x the target.
-
Yeah, it is pretty confusing but I'll take CoDel however I can get it. :)
Ermal ported himself, iirc. Ahead of the curve, that guy! :)I still dunno how to view or set codel's parameters when it is a sub-discipline though. Default or gtfo, I suppose…
I've just had a tinker and I can't find anything, but that certainly doesn't mean it's not there.
I've rarely used BSD, is there some /proc type interface where the information comes from that can be queried directly? -
The whole target qlimit thing applies to CoDel for both the scheulder and the child discipline?
Do you know if the interval changes? The interval is supposed to be 20x the target.
iirc, the sub-discipline setup is purely configured by hard-coded defaults and has no user configurable/viewable params that I am aware of. Hopefully, there is a simple way for a user to view/set the params in that situation. ermal? ;)
interval is the only value required by codel, so I do not think it changes. Technically, the target should be set based on the interval value, not vice versa.
afaik, current codel implementations do not automagically set interval to live RTT.The CoDel building blocks are able to adapt to different or time-
varying link rates, to be easily used with multiple queues, to have
excellent utilization with low delay and to have a simple and
efficient implementation. The only setting CoDel requires is its
interval value, and as 100ms satisfies that definition for normal
internet usage, CoDel can be parameter-free for consumer use.See: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02.txt
I have tried to run a thought-experiment concerning how a 5ms interval should negatively affect codel's performance, but I cannot fully comprehend it. I need to setup a bufferbloat lab…
-
Yeah, it is pretty confusing but I'll take CoDel however I can get it. :)
Ermal ported himself, iirc. Ahead of the curve, that guy! :)I still dunno how to view or set codel's parameters when it is a sub-discipline though. Default or gtfo, I suppose…
I've just had a tinker and I can't find anything, but that certainly doesn't mean it's not there.
I've rarely used BSD, is there some /proc type interface where the information comes from that can be queried directly?iirc, the values could be gotten through some dev/proc interface, but it required an ioctl system call and could not be done via shell commands.
Though, I was confused then and now I've forgotten stuff, so I might be sense-making not-so-much.
-
Well, this is fun. It seems to actually perform worse with the 'correct' values in place.
With 50/5 I was seeing mostly <200ms response time with upstream saturated and a 'B' on dslreports bufferbloat test
With 5/100 I'm seeing mostly <300ms response time, with more between 200 and 300ms than before, and a 'C' on dslreports bufferbloat test -
That might explain why the CoDel people were saying they typically saw bufferbloat is low as 30ms, but I was seeing 0ms. PFSense may be more aggressive with the 5ms interval.
The interval is how often a single packet will be dropped until the packet's time in queue is below the target. If the target is 100ms with a 5ms interval, once you get 100ms of packets, CoDel will start dropping packets every 5ms and slowly increase the rate. It's not exactly how I say it, but close. They have some specific math that makes things everything not as simple as described, but very similar.
the interval is supposed to be set your your "normal" RTT, and the target should be 1/20th that value. Most services I hit have sub 30ms pings. My interval should be say 45ms and my target 2.25ms.
If the interval is too high, CoDel will too passive and have increasing bufferbloat, but if it's too low, it will be too aggressive and reduce throughput.
Maybe this is why PFSense's CoDel gives bad packetloss and throughput on slow connections. If the interval is 5ms, many packets will be dropped in a row.
-
Well, this is fun. It seems to actually perform worse with the 'correct' values in place.
With 50/5 I was seeing mostly <200ms response time with upstream saturated and a 'B' on dslreports bufferbloat test
With 5/100 I'm seeing mostly <300ms response time, with more between 200 and 300ms than before, and a 'C' on dslreports bufferbloat testI think you may have another problem/misconfiguration. You should be seeing MUUUUCH better than 200ms. My ADSL connection goes from 600ms without any traffic-shaping, to 50ms with CoDel on upstream during a fully-saturating, single-stream upload test. My idle ping to first hop is ~10ms.
but lol…. I have been laughing that the fixed parameter values would actually cause a performance decrease...
-
Well, this is fun. It seems to actually perform worse with the 'correct' values in place.
With 50/5 I was seeing mostly <200ms response time with upstream saturated and a 'B' on dslreports bufferbloat test
With 5/100 I'm seeing mostly <300ms response time, with more between 200 and 300ms than before, and a 'C' on dslreports bufferbloat testI think you may have another problem/misconfiguration. You should be seeing MUUUUCH better than 200ms. My ADSL connection goes from 600ms without any traffic-shaping, to 50ms with CoDel on upstream during a fully-saturating, single-stream upload test. My idle ping to first hop is ~10ms.
but lol…. I have been laughing that the fixed parameter values would actually cause a performance decrease...
You're absolutely right, my problem is my ISP and their crappy excuse for a router, which I can't easily replace because it also handles the phones.
My connection will easily hit 2000ms+ if someone is uploading, <200ms is a massive improvement.I'm also laughing a little at the results, based on your previous tests it's not a huge surprise but an explaination would be nice!