A definitive, example-driven, HFSC Reference Thread

[Derelict]

Please start another thread.  HFSC Theory or something.  This one is supposed to be for configuration examples.

[Nullity]

@Harvy66:

If you actually read about implementations of HFSC, they all talk about quantum. "m1, d" are completely optional if you don't care about burst. You can still benefit from the service curves without those two parameters. The notion of a quantum is extremely wide spread for many types of buffer management that work with bytes, all with every so slightly different usages of the term, but pretty much the same no matter what. An example is fq_codel treats the term "quantum" nearly identically.

A quantum in this context is the number of maximum bytes to be dequeued for an pass/iteration/whatever. The scheduler will look at the head packet of each queue and combine the current service curves with the size of the head packet to determine which packets will get processed this quantum. Once the total number of bytes the quantum represents has been consumed, the scheduler will decide if another quantum must be consumed or to go to sleep. With HFSC, the priority will determine the order in which the packets are consumed for the quantum, but has no influence on which packets will be consumed.

If  you have an older 10ms timer, many quantums may be consumed in order to play catch up, so packet scheduling tends to be more bursty.

Please post a link to an HFSC paper that includes references to quantums.
Edit: Please PM me the link since our fruitless back and forth is cluttering this thread.

@Derelict:

Please start another thread.  HFSC Theory or something.  This one is supposed to be for configuration examples.

Apologies Derelict. :( I will delete my posts.
Could you add the few links from https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=79589.msg494188#msg494188 and perhaps http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/homepages/koushik/shivkuma-teaching/sp2003/case/CaseStudy/stoica-hfsc-ton00.pdf to the OP?

[Derelict]

Please don't delete.  It's good content.  If anything ask a mod to move them to a new thread.

[1activegeek]

First off, a hats off to @Derelict for starting this thread. And a HUGE thank you to @Georgeman for contributing the time and patience to help educate. Along with the others contributing. This thread has single handedly given me the most complete and best view of how to use HFSC for traffic shaping. I've read a lot, but some of the (as the title suggests) example-driven scenarios to help solidify and illustrate what is meant by a whole blurb of words. I liken this to watching Law & Order vs just reading the jury transcript and interpreting. (ignoring the fact of course that Law & Order is all fake).

That said, I've got a similar setup to Derelict from the first post, but currently just focusing on the WAN/LAN and will handle DMZ/Guest later. I did not start from scratch, only because I wanted some of the rules from the Wizard in place (RDP ports, Xbox ports, etc). Rather than note them all down and re-create, I figure I would let the wizard do the work. Since doing so, I've then created some additional categories and will be removing others once I figure out my issues illustrated here. I know there may be some nuance changes in the latest 2.3.x version which I'm currently running vs these threads from over 2yrs ago. So I figure why not continue a very USEFUL thread.

I've included a few screenshots to help illustrate a few points, and need a few bits of clarity to help:

1. Why are my Queues WAY above the actual Link values? My WAN link is ~125/13 (cable variations). As seen in the indication, I've got values for Bandwidth that measure ABOVE both of those numbers on LAN and WAN. I believe my understanding was Up/Down could happen on either link (examples of FTP established from LAN, but could upload or download files). But in my example I'm seeing numbers even above my 125Mb possible.
2. How can I identify why I have such a LARGE amount of DROPS? Are these all DROPS from actual Queue traffic, or is this also including FW drops based on bad traffic or rules terminating attempts to hit my network? I'm assuming this is only showing DROPS for the Queues, which when uploading data at about 7Mb Up, it starts dropping about 100 packets every refresh cycle watching the queues.
3. Assuming the DROPS are correct, why is the Quality monitoring showing NO packet loss? I should assume this would look similar to the trend of DROPS?

I've also added an additional screenshot of the 2 speed tests run on DSLreports speedtest to help illustrate a side benefit of enabling the Traffic Shaping - BufferBloat resolution! You can see it goes from a C, to an A and the quality even jumps up to an A+. Hoping some of you are still around the boards, and can offer some input to help me in moving along.

[Harvy66]

1. You can see in your LAN traffic that all of your data is actually going into qLink, that's at least one reason why you're not actually shaping
2. did you actually set an upper limit to your qInternet? Shaping only works well if you tell it how much bandwidth you have

[georgeman]

It looks that you are not properly tagging the outbound traffic, since most of your download ends up in the default queue. Tagging is best done with floating rules, action match, interface WAN, direction OUT (I neither remember nor care about what the wizard does). Remember that floating rules processing for match rules don't stop with the first match, so the LAST matching rule wins. Make sure you catch all relevant traffic with these rules.

As regards the drops, remember that drops are NOT a bad thing. Dropping packets is a natural way TCP has to tell the other end that the packet rate needs to be lowered. It is better for it to happen on your router, where you have control of it, instead of on some upstream ISP router. This is why it is SO important to set the correct upper limits for all this to work, as Harvy66 just said. If you set a higher-than-real upper limit, your pfSense will never drop packets, they will be dropped by the ISP router instead, so you won't be actually shaping anything

[georgeman]

Also, do you have a qDefault queue on your LAN? If you don't, this is (another) flaw in the wizard. When you tag a TCP packet going out of WAN, the return traffic (the actual download) gets into the queue on LAN that has the same name as the one previously tagged on WAN. If it is not there, ends up in the default queue. This seems to be your case

[1activegeek]

Removing my message, as 1 question is irrelevant, and the other is below in next post with more detail.

[1activegeek]

Ok, so I've worked on putting together the queues, and run into an issue stopping me from being able to get very far. It seems I can't leave the Bandwidth blank on the WAN/LAN "top level" queues. So I input the 95% values in there (10/125). I then attempted putting in the numbers as advised for qInternet (95% aka 10Mb) and qLink (20%) - but I can't save and create the qLink queue. I continue to get the message:

"The sum of child bandwidth is higher than parent."

And for clarity and reference, this is the current "planned" setup. For the time being I've used 5% so I can at least build out the Queues:
(All below are Bandwidth/Linkshare m2 values made to be the same per George instructions)

WAN - 10Mb (95%)
-qInternet - 95% or 10Mb
  -qHighest - 15%
  -qACK - 20%
  -qHigh - 15%
  -qMedium - 20%
  -qDefault - 20%
  -qLow - 8%
  -qLowest - 2%
-qLink (Default) 20%
LAN - 125Mb (95%)
-qInternet - 95% or 125Mb
  -qHighest - 15%
  -qACK - 20%
  -qHigh - 15%
  -qMedium - 20%
  -qDefault - 20%
  -qLow - 8%
  -qLowest - 2%
-qLink (Default) 20%


[georgeman]

That's because the child queues are indeed exceeding the parent one!!

Just put 1Gbps or whatever the physical interface is (on the interface queue)

[Harvy66]

@georgeman:

That's because the child queues are indeed exceeding the parent one!!

Just put 1Gbps or whatever the physical interface is (on the interface queue)

If he sets the Link to 1Gb, then he needs to set the Upper Limit in the qInternet queues, which he has not.

Remember guys, "bandwidth" is the minimum bandwidth, but you need to still set your maximum.

@1activegeek:

Ok, so I've worked on putting together the queues, and run into an issue stopping me from being able to get very far. It seems I can't leave the Bandwidth blank on the WAN/LAN "top level" queues. So I input the 95% values in there (10/125). I then attempted putting in the numbers as advised for qInternet (95% aka 10Mb) and qLink (20%) - but I can't save and create the qLink queue. I continue to get the message:

"The sum of child bandwidth is higher than parent."

And for clarity and reference, this is the current "planned" setup. For the time being I've used 5% so I can at least build out the Queues:
(All below are Bandwidth/Linkshare m2 values made to be the same per George instructions)

WAN - 10Mb (95%)
-qInternet - 95% or 10Mb
  -qHighest - 15%
  -qACK - 20%
  -qHigh - 15%
  -qMedium - 20%
  -qDefault - 20%
  -qLow - 8%
  -qLowest - 2%
-qLink (Default) 20%
LAN - 125Mb (95%)
-qInternet - 95% or 125Mb
  -qHighest - 15%
  -qACK - 20%
  -qHigh - 15%
  -qMedium - 20%
  -qDefault - 20%
  -qLow - 8%
  -qLowest - 2%
-qLink (Default) 20%

95% + 20% > 100%

I don't get the LAN when you show "LAN - 125Mb (95%)" and "qInternet - 95% or 125Mb". If qInternet is 95% of LAN, and LAN is 125, then qInternet is ~119.

[Nullity]

Also, isn't "Bandwidth" really just link-share's m2 param (except on root interface queue, yeah?)? If so, that means it is only a proportional value, not a hard minimum/maximum. So, to easily avoid exceeding the parent just use low but proportionally equivilant values like 2Kb and 5Kb rather than 20Mb and 50Mb, respectively.

[1activegeek]

All - I'm going to thank everyone is advance for their help and patience. I think the picture is starting to become a bit clearer.

The reason I was setting my WAN/LAN is because pfSense won't let me NOT set these values. So I opted to fill them with the 95% of REAL bandwidth as suggested originally. This worked out to WAN = 10Mb, LAN =125Mb. The next instruction was to create the hierarchy of qInternet/qDNS-qBulk and qLink. Where qInternet was to match the 95% of REAL bandwidth (again inputting 10Mb/125Mb). qLink was then supposed to be set to 20%, which yes I get is above 100% (95+20>100). I basically hit the wall there not understanding how I could mimic the original setup.

So I think I get this but wanted to confirm a few ideas:

• WAN should be set to the actual limit (aka 95% of REAL speed) for the interface because there is no overhead available between my modem and the provider?
• qLink isn't really necessary on the WAN interface, because qLink is intended for local LAN traffic only?
• LAN should be set to the line/link speed of the interface (aka 1Gb port, set to 1Gb Bandwidth) to allow for handling LOCAL traffic as well
• UL needs to be set on qInternet for LAN (per Harvvy comment)

Assuming those 4 statements are correct, my setup would then be:

WAN - Bandwidth = 10Mb
  - qInternet - Bandwidth = 10Mb / UL = 10Mb / LS = 10Mb
    -qHighest - LS = 15%
    -qACK - LS = 20%
    -qHigh - LS = 15%
    -qMedium - LS = 20%
    -qDefault - LS = 20% (default)
    -qLow - LS = 8%
    -qLowest - LS = 2%
LAN - Bandwidth =1Gb
  - qInternet - Bandwidth = 125Mb / UL = 125Mb / LS = 125Mb
    -qHighest - LS = 15%
    -qACK - LS = 20%
    -qHigh - LS = 15%
    -qMedium - LS = 20%
    -qDefault - LS = 20%
    -qLow - LS = 8%
    -qLowest - LS = 2%
  - qLink - Bandwidth = 875Mb / UL  = 1Gb / LS = 875Mb (default)

(Crossing my fingers I'm headed in the right direction!) Thanks guys!

[georgeman]

Looks pretty much OK.

Not really a need to set UL on qLink, and I would still enforce the limit on qInternet on WAN and set the interface to the physical interface speed (so the limits are always in the same place, if you have to raise the limit in the future you will forget that it's set as well on the interface and will end up debugging this)

Tell us how it goes!

[Harvy66]

I agree with georgeman. Nothing wrong stands out.

[1activegeek]

Thanks all for the help. I've set accordingly and I think it's working as expected. Now the hard part, getting everything classed into the right queues!

[mastermindsos]

Could someone help me out please.
I followed the guide made by georgeman.
I have created these identical setup for my traffic shaper.

But I am stuck at the Floating rule.
I do not know how to create it.

I think something is wrong somewhere in the rule because when I monitored the Queue (while web browsing), the connection did not fall into the right category, instead it went into qLink which is made Default.

Also, how do I create Floating rule for the traffic shaper of LAN?
I have limited knowledge with networking and new with pfsense.
I would like to learn, please guide me. Thank you.

[georgeman]

You have set destination as "WAN net". That's just the subnet where your WAN interface resides.

What I suggested I think is to set destination "! WAN net" (not WAN net), that means every non local destination.

[mastermindsos]

Thanks for the feedback.
I do not follow you. Could you please point me?

[georgeman]

Check "invert match"

You want the rule to match everything but the WAN subnet

Or for the sake of simplicity, just select ANY. It won't make much difference. I suggest you go over this thread since the beginning if you want to understand why and how it works