Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    FQ CoDel - Any plans to implement?

    Traffic Shaping
    9
    28
    13.0k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • H
      Harvy66
      last edited by

      They have showed interest in it, but it is not high priority. There is a lot going on that's keeping them busy.

      Probably better off placing a bounty. Kickstarter!

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • H
        Harvy66
        last edited by

        It does a combination of "fairness" and latency-based rate-increasing head drop. It's a great combination of features that maintains low latency during high utilization.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • N
          Nullity
          last edited by

          Has anyone seen if FAIRQ cannot offer what you want/need? FAIRQ is DragonFlyBSD's implementation of the respected SFQ algorithm.  FAIRQ is that  plus it has priorities, link-sharing, and a "hogs" param, that I still have no figured out yet.

          Using FAIRQ and statically setting your queues to a limit of approximately what CoDel was allowing, could you not practically achieve FQ + tiny (CoDel) buffer?

          I want fq_codel too, but… seems like mommy and daddy do not love us enough.  :'(

          Please correct any obvious misinformation in my posts.
          -Not a professional; an arrogant ignoramous.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • M
            mcwtim
            last edited by

            Just in case those on this sub forum don't check out the bounty forum.

            https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=90942.0

            I've pledged to it, let's step up to get this done.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • F
              foonus
              last edited by

              @mcwtim:

              Just in case those on this sub forum don't check out the bounty forum.

              https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=90942.0

              I've pledged to it, let's step up to get this done.

              Is this finally happening in 3.0? haven't seen any updates.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • N
                Nullity
                last edited by

                @mcwtim:

                Just in case those on this sub forum don't check out the bounty forum.

                https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=90942.0

                I've pledged to it, let's step up to get this done.

                I suppose you want it implemented in ALTQ rather than the impending limiters/dummynet implementation?
                https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=100427.0

                Looking at the source-code I posted, we may already have virtually the same thing with FAIRQ (or HFSC) + CoDel. Regardless of the code differences, I have seen no performance comparison between the performance of proper fq_codel & our FAIRQ/HFSC + CoDel. With no information to go from, who is to say our setup is sub-par?

                We need to do some testing and/or code review before throwing money at things.

                Please correct any obvious misinformation in my posts.
                -Not a professional; an arrogant ignoramous.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • N
                  Nullity
                  last edited by

                  @Nullity:

                  …
                  We need to do some testing and/or code review before throwing money at things.

                  Actually, I will do some testing this weekend.

                  I figure I will install IPFire (fq_codel) and run a dozen dslreports throughput tests to test bufferbloat, perhaps run some manual ping test while fully saturating the upload, the try the same tests with pfSense (FAIRQ/HFSC + CoDel). Maybe some subjective web-browsing browsing tests during multi-stream & single-stream upload saturation… anyone know how to test web-browsing more objectively?

                  Any info about what I should test would be appreciated. :)

                  I doubt I will test download saturation as CoDel is not really meant for that (minimal buffering). Maybe though...

                  Please correct any obvious misinformation in my posts.
                  -Not a professional; an arrogant ignoramous.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • N
                    Nullity
                    last edited by

                    @Nullity:

                    @Nullity:

                    …
                    We need to do some testing and/or code review before throwing money at things.

                    Actually, I will do some testing this weekend.

                    I figure I will install IPFire (fq_codel) and run a dozen dslreports throughput tests to test bufferbloat, perhaps run some manual ping test while fully saturating the upload, the try the same tests with pfSense (FAIRQ/HFSC + CoDel). Maybe some subjective web-browsing browsing tests during multi-stream & single-stream upload saturation… anyone know how to test web-browsing more objectively?

                    Any info about what I should test would be appreciated. :)

                    I doubt I will test download saturation as CoDel is not really meant for that (minimal buffering). Maybe though...

                    K, I suck. No tests conducted…

                    If I can get some input regarding the proper way to run subjective tests, I would be very appreciative.

                    So far, I figure I will obey the testing procedures outlined by bufferbloat.TLD, but otherwise I am ... lacking. I love graphs, but I am a graph noob and an even worse noob when it regards creating said graphs.

                    Please correct any obvious misinformation in my posts.
                    -Not a professional; an arrogant ignoramous.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • S
                      sofakng
                      last edited by

                      Thanks for looking into the issue and performing the tests Nullify.

                      I'm extremely interested in this issue as well, and am considering switching to an Ubiquity EdgeRouter for fq_codel support, but if pfsense can work equally as well using fairq + codel then I would love to stay on this platform instead.

                      I'd also be willing to run some tests (between opwnrt, ipfire, and pfsense?) but I don't want to rely on anything subjective.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        switchman
                        last edited by

                        @Nullity, I look forward to your test results of IPFire.  I have thought about switching, but have been too lazy and did not want to mess with my working system.  I have FairQ enabled with CoDel as the scheduler.  My traffic pattern is very simple so it seems to work fine in my application.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • N
                          Nullity
                          last edited by

                          @switchman:

                          @Nullity, I look forward to your test results of IPFire.  I have thought about switching, but have been too lazy and did not want to mess with my working system.  I have FairQ enabled with CoDel as the scheduler.  My traffic pattern is very simple so it seems to work fine in my application.

                          Well… perhaps this weekend...
                          Thanks for voicing your interest. :)

                          Considering that the graph earlier in this thread shows that fair queueing, not bufferbloat/codel, has more of an impact on worst-case, multistream latency than just codel, I am interested to see the results too.

                          I guess I will do a shitty, ill-prepared test this weekend. Some results are better than none, I guess.

                          Please correct any obvious misinformation in my posts.
                          -Not a professional; an arrogant ignoramous.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • D
                            dtaht
                            last edited by

                            will these freebsd patches work for pfsense?

                            On 2/26/16 6:17 AM, Rasool Al-Saadi wrote:

                            Dear all,

                            I would like to announce that we (myself and Grenville Armitage) released Dummynet AQM v0.1, which is an independent implementation of CoDel and FQ-CoDel for FreeBSD's ipfw/dummynet framework, based on the IETF  CoDel [1] and FQ-CoDel [2] Internet-Drafts.
                            We prepared patches for FreeBSD11-CURRENT-r295345  and FreeBSD 10.x-RELEASE (10.0, 10.1, 10.2), and a technical report  of our implementation.

                            Patches and documentation can be found in:
                            http://caia.swin.edu.au/freebsd/aqm

                            Technical report:
                            http://caia.swin.edu.au/reports/160226A/CAIA-TR-160226A.pdf

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • N
                              Nullity
                              last edited by

                              @dtaht:

                              will these freebsd patches work for pfsense?

                              On 2/26/16 6:17 AM, Rasool Al-Saadi wrote:

                              Dear all,

                              I would like to announce that we (myself and Grenville Armitage) released Dummynet AQM v0.1, which is an independent implementation of CoDel and FQ-CoDel for FreeBSD's ipfw/dummynet framework, based on the IETF  CoDel [1] and FQ-CoDel [2] Internet-Drafts.
                              We prepared patches for FreeBSD11-CURRENT-r295345  and FreeBSD 10.x-RELEASE (10.0, 10.1, 10.2), and a technical report  of our implementation.

                              Patches and documentation can be found in:
                              http://caia.swin.edu.au/freebsd/aqm

                              Technical report:
                              http://caia.swin.edu.au/reports/160226A/CAIA-TR-160226A.pdf

                              It very likely will (and pfSense has been improving their upstream compatibility), but the majority of pfSense users seem to use ALTQ for their traffic-shaping, not dummynet.

                              Please correct any obvious misinformation in my posts.
                              -Not a professional; an arrogant ignoramous.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • S
                                sofakng
                                last edited by

                                I'm not sure the difference between ALTQ and dummynet, but I would absolutely love for pfSense to support fq-codel regardless of how it's implemented.  (as long as it works correctly… right?)

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • N
                                  Nullity
                                  last edited by

                                  @sofakng:

                                  I'm not sure the difference between ALTQ and dummynet, but I would absolutely love for pfSense to support fq-codel regardless of how it's implemented.  (as long as it works correctly… right?)

                                  In pfSense ALTQ is known as traffic-shaping queues, and dummynet is known as limiters.

                                  Please correct any obvious misinformation in my posts.
                                  -Not a professional; an arrogant ignoramous.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • First post
                                    Last post
                                  Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.