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

    Traffic Graphs shows wrong throughout when traffic shaping enabled

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Traffic Shaping
    12 Posts 6 Posters 4.1k 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.
    • T Offline
      TheUbuntuGuy
      last edited by

      This issue is still present in 2.2.5. I upgraded from 2.1.5 a few days ago and immediately noticed this change.

      I noticed that only my WAN interface reports incorrect traffic, a little less than 50% the real throughput.
      My 3 LANs are all fine.

      After some experimentation, it seems to be the 'bandwidth' parameter in the WAN traffic shaper which is 'causing' this.
      In my setup it is set to 10Mbit/s. If I remove the value and reload the shaper, the traffic graph shoots up to the correct value. (However the shaper is no longer dropping packets).
      Since this is the only interface with a bandwidth value set, it is the only one which has its graph affected. As a result, only outbound traffic on the WAN is shown incorrectly.

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

        Use pfTop instead of the traffic graph. Traffic graph is just a cutesy GUI thing. Do not rely on it (for now).

        @TheUbuntuGuy, if you are using HFSC, Bandwidth technically sets link-share's m2, so Bandwidth can be excluded while having the exact same functionality. When I was diving deep into the undocumented uses of HFSC I had some complex configs that would only work if I left out Bandwidth. The configurations were technically correct, but for unknown reasons, the GUI complained under certain circumstances.

        So, maybe the Bandwidth param should be the focus of some debugging.

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

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • M Offline
          moikerz
          last edited by

          Is this still an issue in 2.3?

          @Nullity:

          … using HFSC, Bandwidth technically sets link-share's m2, so Bandwidth can be excluded while having the exact same functionality.

          So I can clear the Bandwidth field, check the Link-Share option, and set m2 at the original value for Bandwidth? I thought the Bandwidth field sets the Upperlimit m2?

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

            Bandwidth sets linkshare, which is the minimum amount of bandwidth, not maximum.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M Offline
              moikerz
              last edited by

              @Harvy66:

              Bandwidth sets linkshare, which is the minimum amount of bandwidth, not maximum.

              So for my setup (below), it makes no sense to set Bandwidth + Upperlimit to the same for LAN1 and LAN2?

              WAN, HFSC, Bandwidth: 5Mbps
                  - qInternet, CoDel, Bandwidth: 5Mbps
                      - qNormal, Default, CoDel, Bandwidth: 10%
                      - qHigh, CoDel, Bandwidth: 20%
                      - qLow, CoDel, Bandwidth: 5%

              LAN1, HFSC, Bandwidth: 900Mbps
                  - qLink, CoDel, Bandwidth: 895Mbps
                  - qInternet, CoDel, Bandwidth: 4Mbps, Upperlimit: 4Mbps
                      - qHigh, CoDel, Bandwidth: 20%
                      - qNormal, Default, CoDel, Bandwidth: 10%
                      - qLow, CoDel, Bandwidth: 5%

              LAN2, HFSC, Bandwidth: 900Mbps
                  - qLink, CoDel, Bandwidth: 895Mbps
                  - qInternet, CoDel, Bandwidth: 1Mbps, Upperlimit: 1Mbps
                      - qHigh, CoDel, Bandwidth: 20%
                      - qNormal, Default, CoDel, Bandwidth: 10%
                      - qLow, CoDel, Bandwidth: 5%

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

                The upperlimit looks correct in your config. Just an fyi, but Codel does not always play well with really low bandwidth like 1Mb/s and it could aggressively drop packets. The reason for this is Codel is time based and a 1500mtu packet can take too long to send at 1Mb/s and trigger Codel's drop path.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • M Offline
                  moikerz
                  last edited by

                  @Harvy66:

                  The upperlimit looks correct in your config. Just an fyi, but Codel does not always play well with really low bandwidth like 1Mb/s and it could aggressively drop packets. The reason for this is Codel is time based and a 1500mtu packet can take too long to send at 1Mb/s and trigger Codel's drop path.

                  Hmm, yes I remember something about CoDel and low bandwidths. It probably explains why some webpages just seem to 'hang'.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • M Offline
                    moikerz
                    last edited by

                    Harvy66,
                    If I remove the parent "Bandwidth" value and put it in the Link-Share m2, I get a configuration error, because all of the child queues use Bandwidth as a % of the parent. So for:

                    LAN1, HFSC, Bandwidth: 900Mbps
                        - qLink, Bandwidth: 895Mbps
                        - qInternet, Bandwidth: 4Mbps, Upperlimit: 4Mbps
                            - qHigh, Bandwidth: 20%
                            - qNormal, Default, Bandwidth: 10%
                            - qLow, Bandwidth: 5%

                    If I'm understanding correctly, the throughput graphs are messed up when HFSC uses the Bandwidth value. I need to limit qInternet to 4Mbps to avoid saturation, but I need to specify the minimum service levels for the child queues as well.

                    Am I doing something wrong? Or is this still a bug with the throughput graphs?

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

                      The HFSC config really wants bandwidth provided even though link-share is synonymous. What I've done is just make sure they're both the same if I plan on using link-share for its more advanced features, which I don't really recommend messing with.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M Offline
                        moikerz
                        last edited by

                        @Harvy66:

                        The HFSC config really wants bandwidth provided even though link-share is synonymous. What I've done is just make sure they're both the same if I plan on using link-share for its more advanced features, which I don't really recommend messing with.

                        Hmmmkay. So it sounds like what I've done is correct for HFSC, but a consequence is the UI graphs are messed up. I'll just rely on pfTop in the shell.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • A Offline
                          asayler
                          last edited by

                          I'm seeing the traffic graph issue as well using a PRIQ shaper. Although it became most pronounced (e.g. off by more than 50% - shows ~4 Mbps for an 11+ Mbps flow) only after I disabled all of the scheduler options (e.g. Codel, RED, ECN, etc). I mentioned this issue at https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=115862.0 but figured I should post it here as well in case the extra data is usefull. WHen Codel or ECN were enabled, the traffic graph was much closer (within 1 Mbps or so) to being correct (if not exactly correct).

                          Is there an open bug report for this in redmine? If not, should I open one?

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