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

    2.3 change bandwidth per queue

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Traffic Shaping
    25 Posts 4 Posters 6.9k Views
    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

      You showed us your queue configuration, what about your interface(root queue)?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • T
        tongsama
        last edited by

        Root queue is okay. Set at 11 mb.
        The issue is i no longer have granular settings for the sub queues.

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

          What scheduler are you using? I should check mine when I get home. I'm using HFSC and it still seems to be working, but I haven't looked at the UI since the upgrade. In my case, I had percentages to the hundreth's place.

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

            @Harvy66:

            What scheduler are you using? I should check mine when I get home. I'm using HFSC and it still seems to be working, but I haven't looked at the UI since the upgrade. In my case, I had percentages to the hundreth's place.

            Yeah, we should probably double-check the GUI/wizard… :)

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

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • T
              tongsama
              last edited by

              i was/is using CBQ. This worked for multiple sites. After upgrading to 2.3, the gui seems to remove the option to change the bandwidth per sub queue.

              Cood call on HFSC. I set to that and it still have the bandwidth for sub queues.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • M
                markn62
                last edited by

                I just upgraded to 2.3-RELEASE (amd64), shaping with CBQ and encounter the same problem as tongsama.  Can't edit child bandwidth, no WebGui field, therefore my router is overrunning the modems upstream buffer. Any way to edit via ssh to get by?  Reducing the parent bandwidth to anything lower than current causes error; The sum of child bandwidth is higher than parent.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • T
                  tongsama
                  last edited by

                  I recommend switching to HFSC. It seems to prioritize my gaming and VOIP packets better. I can turn on downloads then launch a game and watch the downloads get limited.
                  Worked a lot better than CBQ. The CBQ just lessens the lag during gaming.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • M
                    markn62
                    last edited by

                    Not an option to switch shapers right now. I'm in the middle of troubleshooting a production unit.

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

                      @tongsama:

                      I recommend switching to HFSC. It seems to prioritize my gaming and VOIP packets better. I can turn on downloads then launch a game and watch the downloads get limited.
                      Worked a lot better than CBQ. The CBQ just lessens the lag during gaming.

                      I think HFSC is more bandwidth efficient than CBQ. You may be experiencing bufferbloat by having more bandwidth passing. Try setting your interface bandwidth a bit lower. I think CBQ has about 10% bandwidth loss, so subtract close to that.

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

                        @Harvy66:

                        @tongsama:

                        I recommend switching to HFSC. It seems to prioritize my gaming and VOIP packets better. I can turn on downloads then launch a game and watch the downloads get limited.
                        Worked a lot better than CBQ. The CBQ just lessens the lag during gaming.

                        I think HFSC is more bandwidth efficient than CBQ. You may be experiencing bufferbloat by having more bandwidth passing. Try setting your interface bandwidth a bit lower. I think CBQ has about 10% bandwidth loss, so subtract close to that.

                        What do you mean by "bandwidth efficiency" and "bandwidth loss"?

                        The author of ALTQ says the following (http://www.iijlab.net/~kjc/software/TIPS.txt, from section 1.1 "Queueing Disciplines");

                        …
                        Probably, what you will be using is only CBQ, HFSC and/or RED. CBQ is the most well-engineered among the implemented disciplines. HFSC has nicer theoretical properties than CBQ at the cost of slightly higher overhead.
                        ...

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

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • M
                          markn62
                          last edited by

                          Harvy, I know I'm overrunning the modem buffer but as I mentioned I can't lower the interface (parent) bandwidth, thats the question of my post, HOW?

                          Can't edit child bandwidth, no WebGui field, therefore my router is overrunning the modems upstream buffer. Any way to edit via ssh to get by?  Reducing the parent bandwidth to anything lower than current causes error; The sum of child bandwidth is higher than parent.

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

                            @markn62:

                            Harvy, I know I'm overrunning the modem buffer but as I mentioned I can't lower the interface (parent) bandwidth, thats the question of my post, HOW?

                            Can't edit child bandwidth, no WebGui field, therefore my router is overrunning the modems upstream buffer. Any way to edit via ssh to get by?  Reducing the parent bandwidth to anything lower than current causes error; The sum of child bandwidth is higher than parent.

                            You can edit ALTQ by using SSH to run the appropriate pfctl commands, but those settings will notbe persistant, so… don't do it.

                            I use HFSC (but that should be unimportant), and here is what I see when viewing a queue: 

                            I see everything is as it should be… "Bandwidth" being the most important part. Do you not have a "Bandwidth" parameter in your GUI?

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

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • M
                              markn62
                              last edited by

                              This is what I see with CBQ.

                              ScreenShot011.jpg
                              ScreenShot011.jpg_thumb

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

                                @markn62:

                                This is what I see with CBQ.

                                That does seem to be missing something.

                                Have you checked the pfSense bug tracker? https://redmine.pfsense.org

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

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • M
                                  markn62
                                  last edited by

                                  Bout it…
                                  https://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/repository/revisions/45eeb0385d5d0873b121a6aee8f7bd7f7ab5d467

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

                                    @Nullity:

                                    @Harvy66:

                                    @tongsama:

                                    I recommend switching to HFSC. It seems to prioritize my gaming and VOIP packets better. I can turn on downloads then launch a game and watch the downloads get limited.
                                    Worked a lot better than CBQ. The CBQ just lessens the lag during gaming.

                                    I think HFSC is more bandwidth efficient than CBQ. You may be experiencing bufferbloat by having more bandwidth passing. Try setting your interface bandwidth a bit lower. I think CBQ has about 10% bandwidth loss, so subtract close to that.

                                    What do you mean by "bandwidth efficiency" and "bandwidth loss"?

                                    The author of ALTQ says the following (http://www.iijlab.net/~kjc/software/TIPS.txt, from section 1.1 "Queueing Disciplines");

                                    …
                                    Probably, what you will be using is only CBQ, HFSC and/or RED. CBQ is the most well-engineered among the implemented disciplines. HFSC has nicer theoretical properties than CBQ at the cost of slightly higher overhead.
                                    ...

                                    Some implementations of CBQ, not to say what PFSense currently uses, if you say 10Mb/s, your peak is only about 9Mb/s, so you need to set it higher because there's a 10% "loss". The scheduler needs to hold back in order to properly work. HFSC seems to be very close to 100%. What I was getting at is tongsama said CQB has less latency. ASsuming both HFSC and CBQ set to 10Mb, HFSC could possibly be passing more of that 10Mb, making bufferbloat an issue.

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

                                      @Harvy66:

                                      @Nullity:

                                      @Harvy66:

                                      @tongsama:

                                      I recommend switching to HFSC. It seems to prioritize my gaming and VOIP packets better. I can turn on downloads then launch a game and watch the downloads get limited.
                                      Worked a lot better than CBQ. The CBQ just lessens the lag during gaming.

                                      I think HFSC is more bandwidth efficient than CBQ. You may be experiencing bufferbloat by having more bandwidth passing. Try setting your interface bandwidth a bit lower. I think CBQ has about 10% bandwidth loss, so subtract close to that.

                                      What do you mean by "bandwidth efficiency" and "bandwidth loss"?

                                      The author of ALTQ says the following (http://www.iijlab.net/~kjc/software/TIPS.txt, from section 1.1 "Queueing Disciplines");

                                      …
                                      Probably, what you will be using is only CBQ, HFSC and/or RED. CBQ is the most well-engineered among the implemented disciplines. HFSC has nicer theoretical properties than CBQ at the cost of slightly higher overhead.
                                      ...

                                      Some implementations of CBQ, not to say what PFSense currently uses, if you say 10Mb/s, your peak is only about 9Mb/s, so you need to set it higher because there's a 10% "loss". The scheduler needs to hold back in order to properly work. HFSC seems to be very close to 100%. What I was getting at is tongsama said CQB has less latency. ASsuming both HFSC and CBQ set to 10Mb, HFSC could possibly be passing more of that 10Mb, making bufferbloat an issue.

                                      Citation?

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

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

                                        I'm sorry, I don't maintain an index of citations for everything that I have read in my life. Just saying I read it somewhere at some point. I place no stake in its correctness at the time that I read or currently, just that I read it in an unknown context. While the information could have been false at the time that I read it, I would find it very strange that someone would be have ran a fud campaign against CBQ.

                                        Here's a fun read about D-CBQ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/87a6/9a173cf9c787607511a8551a8e0331da028a.pdf and it's attempt to decouple delay and bandwidth. It seems there have been several attempts to change CBQ to decouple or reduce delay from bandwidth. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1433/b2afcd8e08de52b1fba6127c89808f58b3f2.pdf

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • M
                                          markn62
                                          last edited by

                                          So back to the original question, is there a way to change the cbq shapers interface bandwidth value, and any other child bandwidth values if needed, and avoid the error; "The sum of child bandwidth is higher than parent".  Or is waiting months for the next release our only option?

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • M
                                            markn62
                                            last edited by

                                            I'll try editing the config.xml.
                                            https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=110438.0

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