Playing with fq_codel in 2.4

xciter327

My guess would be to place it at the very top of the floating rule set. I believe pf does "match most specific" unless "quick match" is selected.

uptownVagrant

@xciter327 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

My guess would be to place it at the very top of the floating rule set. I believe pf does "match most specific" unless "quick match" is selected.

pf is last match wins unless quick is enabled. Quick is enabled by default on interface rules but has to be selected on floating rules

xciter327

Good to hear. I did not know about the default quick on interface rules. That explains some things.

w0w

I've rebuilt my network a bit, but I am not sure when this was happened — one PC behind pfSense always get the A or A+ rating and the other get the D or even lower grade rating on dslreports, both are on the same LAN. FQ_CODEL configuration is similar to the others in this thread except only that it is applied on the LAN side (LAN to any). When I disable limiters, then both PCs get A or A+ rating. Does anyone have an idea, what is going wrong?

ohbobva

What about Dual WAN?

I've used the previous post (https://forum.netgate.com/post/807490), with my best guess modifications for two WANs (duplicated rules for each WAN, and duplicated queues), and received good grades on the DSLReports test. However, I use a dual WAN fallover setup. I noticed, today, when WAN1 went down and PFSense switched to WAN2, all traffic stopped. Removing the floating rules fixed the issue.

The two WANs have different speeds.

Does anyone have this working with dual WAN setup (different WAN speeds) in a fallover configuration? If so, what do your floating rules look like?

@uptownVagrant Do you have any suggestions to modify your steps for dual WAN w/ fallover?

Thanks, in advance, for any suggestions.

provels

OK! I have fallen down the rabbit hole of bufferbloat! EEK!
I've followed the Netgate video/slides on creating limiters without much benefit.
I get a B for bufferbloat at DSLReports and A's for Quality and Overall.
I have a 300/25 (advertised) Comcast cable connection. Tried changing the bandwidth down (reducing) , and the queue lengths (+/-/eliminating) w/o benefit. At this point, the DL queue length is set at 2000 and seems to be best so far. UL does not appear to be a problem. Any thing I can do short of getting a life? :)

uptownVagrant

@provels without the limiter rules enabled, and your filters reloaded and old states killed, what speeds are you seeing when you run the dslreports.com/speedtest for 60 seconds? It could be that Comcast's burst capacity during short tests may be heavily skewing your results - I seem to remember the default test duration only being 20 seconds. I think you may have to create an account and go into the preferences of the speed test to increase upload and download duration to 60s. There's always the flent project if you're savvy.

Another thought, depending on how close your current limiter config is to the Comcast circuit sustained cap, you may be running into some buffering on your cable modem. What DOCSIS version is your cable modem operating?

I'm assuming you're testing with a computer attached to your router/switch with an Ethernet cable and not using Wi-Fi.

You could try halving your advertised values in your limiters and then increasing from there after each test. Note, if you're using FQ_CoDel then the queue length that you set in the limiter config is not being used. FQ_CoDel manages queue lengths dynamically and works to dequeue packets within the target you set.

Here's a guide that might help although I would suggest leaving target, interval, quantum, limit, and flows set as the pfSense defaults for the initial tests.:
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/112527/playing-with-fq_codel-in-2-4/815

Best of luck

Pentangle

@ohbobva I'm running dual WAN with different speeds, and all you need to do is duplicate your setup. i.e. create four different limiters - upstream WAN1, upstream WAN2, downstream WAN1, downstream WAN2, and then a queue within each of those limiters. Set up four floating rules for WAN1-IPv4, WAN1-IPv6, WAN2-IPv4, WAN2-IPv6 and it all works as advertised. Be careful not to just create two queues within the same limiter as the limit will be the aggregate bandwidth of the two.

jasonraymundo31

@Pentangle said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

@ohbobva I'm running dual WAN with different speeds, and all you need to do is duplicate your setup. i.e. create four different limiters - upstream WAN1, upstream WAN2, downstream WAN1, downstream WAN2, and then a queue within each of those limiters. Set up four floating rules for WAN1-IPv4, WAN1-IPv6, WAN2-IPv4, WAN2-IPv6 and it all works as advertised. Be careful not to just create two queues within the same limiter as the limit will be the aggregate bandwidth of the two.

I'm having hard time to follow you, do you mind taking a screenshot of your config ? Thanks in advance, very much appreciated.

provels

@uptownVagrant said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

Thanks very much for your quick reply ;)

@provels without the limiter rules enabled, and your filters reloaded and old states killed, what speeds are you seeing when you run the dslreports.com/speedtest for 60 seconds? It could be that Comcast's burst capacity during short tests may be heavily skewing your results - I seem to remember the default test duration only being 20 seconds. I think you may have to create an account and go into the preferences of the speed test to increase upload and download duration to 60s. There's always the flent project if you're savvy.

Did as you suggested, I get results as follows. Looked at flent, but I'm Windows. My upload is no issue, with or without limiters, but the download bloat is normally in the 60-90ms range.

179/24 Mbps
189/23
169/24

This result is pretty typical.

This is a typical result using the Ookla Speed Test (client version)
>

Another thought, depending on how close your current limiter config is to the Comcast circuit sustained cap, you may be running into some buffering on your cable modem. What DOCSIS version is your cable modem operating?

Modem is a Netgear CM600, DOCSIS 3.0, 24x8, Broadcom

I'm assuming you're testing with a computer attached to your router/switch with an Ethernet cable and not using Wi-Fi.

Yes, testing wired, but my pfSense is a VM running in Hyper-V and I'm testing from the host Desktop session. Maybe I'll wire up my laptop.

You could try halving your advertised values in your limiters and then increasing from there after each test.

I'll start by halving my DL BW and add from there.

Note, if you're using FQ_CoDel then the queue length that you set in the limiter config is not being used. FQ_CoDel manages queue lengths dynamically and works to dequeue packets within the target you set.

Noted and deleted.

Here's a guide that might help although I would suggest leaving target, interval, quantum, limit, and flows set as the pfSense defaults for the initial tests.:
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/112527/playing-with-fq_codel-in-2-4/815

Best of luck

Thanks for the tips. I'll check out the guide and report back. Thanks again! :)

cwagz

I can start a new thread if more appropriate...

What is the best way to prioritize WiFi Calling traffic while using an FQ_CoDel limiter setup?

I have a setup with 30 - 80 WiFi clients. Currently using limiters and FQ_CoDel which seems to share the bandwidth very nicely. We have been having problems with WiFi Calling not being super reliable. We are in a cellular dead zone so people are relying on it.

I was able to improve WiFi calling reliability by changing the Firewall Optimization to Conservative and changing the outbound NAT mode to Automatic rule generation.

I would like to further optimize by making sure all the WiFi calling traffic has top priority.

dtaht

This really is the thread from hell isn't it? I'd do a new thread.

Over on linux (and not bsd as yet), we did this:

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc17/atc17-hoiland-jorgensen.pdf

Skip to the MOS score at the end, and work back. There's support now for intel, qca, and mediatek chips. However... if you can get the clients to dscp mark for the VO or VI queue for how your AP defines it, that helps in that direction, and
it is generally possible to build a more complicated qos/sqm setup that explicitly prioritizes voip out of the ipfw tools.

In general I'm a big believer in short (fair) queues and lots of 'em, and not huge on prioritization. sch_cake (also mentioned on this thread), has some built-in optimizations as well.

cwagz

This post is deleted!

cwagz

@dtaht said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

This really is the thread from hell isn't it? I'd do a new thread.

Over on linux (and not bsd as yet), we did this:

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc17/atc17-hoiland-jorgensen.pdf

Skip to the MOS score at the end, and work back. There's support now for intel, qca, and mediatek chips. However... if you can get the clients to dscp mark for the VO or VI queue for how your AP defines it, that helps in that direction, and
it is generally possible to build a more complicated qos/sqm setup that explicitly prioritizes voip out of the ipfw tools.

In general I'm a big believer in short (fair) queues and lots of 'em, and not huge on prioritization. sch_cake (also mentioned on this thread), has some built-in optimizations as well.

Thank you, dthat. I will look at this information.

New thread:
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/145924/prioritize-wifi-calling-traffic-and-fq_codel

provels

After limiters and rules are in effect and states have been initially cleared, is it necessary to dump the states every time a modification is made to the limiters during testing? Thanks.

xciter327

@provels said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

After limiters and rules are in effect and states have been initially cleared, is it necessary to dump the states every time a modification is made to the limiters during testing? Thanks.

I clear them every time. Also monitor syslog to check if there are any errors.

wgstarks

I keep seeing these errors in my system log-

fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
fq_codel_enqueue over limit
fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
fq_codel_enqueue over limit
fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
fq_codel_enqueue over limit
fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797
fq_codel_enqueue over limit
fq_codel_enqueue maxidx = 797

They seem to show at random times maybe 2 or 3 times a week and will repeat for a few minutes before stopping. Not sure if they represent a problem or how to fix them? Could definitely use any advice.

subzerogts

Hi guys, I'm new here and just followed the YouTube video from Netgate on how to set up fq codel with limiters. But then browsing this thread, I see people saying those settings are wrong and to use 'Tail Drop' as the queue management algorithm? I'm confused, why?

Also, any recommendation on settings I should use? I have a gigabit verizon fios connection. It's hit 940/900 on Verizon's test if I recall correctly. Actually the upload has gotten over 900 a few times, the download is usually 500-700 on normal speed test sites except Verizon's where it can hit 900+ (and dslreports which has gotten it to 800+ a few times). I have a Plex Media Server and a gaming machine on the network.

Using the settings from the YouTube vid got my Bufferbloat score to go from A to A+ in dslreports' test.

provels

@subzerogts If you are at A+, I don't expect you have much to gain, LOL. I followed the video and also tried the tail drop config. Nothing seems to help me. Bloat is a B/C, Quality is A/B and Speed is D/F, even though the Ookla speedtest client gets me my advertised 300/25 to various local servers (even when limiting the Down limiter to 150. Nonsensical. Completely random speedtest-cli results testing from an inside server through pfSense and at the DSLReports test page. I don't know if maybe it's Comcast, my modem or what.

provels

If I want to disable the limiters, I know there are checkboxes for that. But if I just disable the floating rules and reset states, that gets them out of the system anyway, right?