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

Playing with fq_codel in 2.4

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Traffic Shaping
1.1k Posts 123 Posters 1.5m 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.
  • D
    dtaht
    last edited by Aug 21, 2019, 1:27 PM

    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.

    C 2 Replies Last reply Aug 21, 2019, 1:40 PM Reply Quote 0
    • C
      cwagz @dtaht
      last edited by cwagz Aug 21, 2019, 1:41 PM Aug 21, 2019, 1:40 PM

      This post is deleted!
      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        cwagz @dtaht
        last edited by Aug 21, 2019, 2:01 PM

        @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

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • P
          provels
          last edited by Aug 21, 2019, 3:06 PM

          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.

          Peder

          MAIN - pfSense+ 24.11-RELEASE - Adlink MXE-5401, i7, 16 GB RAM, 64 GB SSD. 500 GB HDD for SyslogNG
          BACKUP - pfSense+ 23.01-RELEASE - Hyper-V Virtual Machine, Gen 1, 2 v-CPUs, 3 GB RAM, 8GB VHDX (Dynamic)

          X 1 Reply Last reply Aug 21, 2019, 6:05 PM Reply Quote 0
          • X
            xciter327 @provels
            last edited by Aug 21, 2019, 6:05 PM

            @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.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • W
              wgstarks
              last edited by Aug 24, 2019, 3:00 PM

              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.

              Box: SG-4200

              T 1 Reply Last reply Aug 25, 2019, 3:09 PM Reply Quote 0
              • S
                subzerogts
                last edited by Aug 25, 2019, 2:10 PM

                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.

                P T 2 Replies Last reply Aug 25, 2019, 2:45 PM Reply Quote 0
                • P
                  provels @subzerogts
                  last edited by provels Aug 25, 2019, 3:07 PM Aug 25, 2019, 2:45 PM

                  @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.
                  ddb1039d-0116-4bd4-8046-0d6ee00ab863-image.png
                  e0e0a0ac-6e24-472a-9da4-97854c1953af-image.png

                  Peder

                  MAIN - pfSense+ 24.11-RELEASE - Adlink MXE-5401, i7, 16 GB RAM, 64 GB SSD. 500 GB HDD for SyslogNG
                  BACKUP - pfSense+ 23.01-RELEASE - Hyper-V Virtual Machine, Gen 1, 2 v-CPUs, 3 GB RAM, 8GB VHDX (Dynamic)

                  T 1 Reply Last reply Aug 25, 2019, 3:25 PM Reply Quote 0
                  • P
                    provels
                    last edited by Aug 25, 2019, 3:01 PM

                    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?

                    Peder

                    MAIN - pfSense+ 24.11-RELEASE - Adlink MXE-5401, i7, 16 GB RAM, 64 GB SSD. 500 GB HDD for SyslogNG
                    BACKUP - pfSense+ 23.01-RELEASE - Hyper-V Virtual Machine, Gen 1, 2 v-CPUs, 3 GB RAM, 8GB VHDX (Dynamic)

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • T
                      tman222 @wgstarks
                      last edited by Aug 25, 2019, 3:09 PM

                      @wgstarks said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                      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.

                      @wgstarks - what are your fq-codel parameters set to? One thing you might try is increasing the the value for the limit parameter. Here is a a link to some good documentation on what each parameter does:

                      http://caia.swin.edu.au/freebsd/aqm/downloads.html

                      Hope this helps.

                      W 2 Replies Last reply Aug 25, 2019, 9:38 PM Reply Quote 0
                      • T
                        tman222 @provels
                        last edited by Aug 25, 2019, 3:25 PM

                        @provels said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                        @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.
                        ddb1039d-0116-4bd4-8046-0d6ee00ab863-image.png
                        e0e0a0ac-6e24-472a-9da4-97854c1953af-image.png

                        @provels - how do the results change if you reduce the number of parallel streams during the DSL Reports speed test? Also, have you tried changing / tuning any of the fq-codel parameters?

                        Something else I thought of: I admit that I don't know a lot about cable modems, but is buying a DOCSIS 3.1 cable modem an option? As far as I can tell DOCSIS 3.1 includes AQM part of the specification:

                        https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8034

                        Hope this helps.

                        P 1 Reply Last reply Aug 25, 2019, 4:28 PM Reply Quote 0
                        • T
                          tman222 @subzerogts
                          last edited by Aug 25, 2019, 3:41 PM

                          @subzerogts said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                          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.

                          When you select FQ_CODEL as scheduler you don't have to worry about setting up queue management algorithms for the queues because fq-codel manages per flow created packet queues automatically as part of fq-codel algorithm. This is why you don't really see any difference in performance if you e.g. select Codel as the queue management algorithm if you have FQ_CODEL selected.

                          Having said that, fq-codel is a bit unique in this regard (in that it also manages per flow queues vs. just scheduling packets). In a way you can kind of think of fq-codel as a hybrid or all-in one packet scheduler and queue management algorithm. However, this is not the case for some of the other algorithms you have available to choose from as well as schedulers (e.g. QFQ, Round Robin, etc.). These are actually just scheduling algorithms that determine how packets should be dequeued from one more packet queues (e.g. Round Robin, weighted, etc.) When using one of these scheduling-only algorithms, you'll still have to setup packet queues and then choose an algorithm to manage those queues. In such as scenario, choosing a queue management algorithm will be important and will make a difference in performance.

                          Hope this helps.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • P
                            provels @tman222
                            last edited by Aug 25, 2019, 4:28 PM

                            @tman222 BB goes to A and Speed tanks when I reduced DL streams from 24 to 6 or 12. Already bought the new Netgear modem after Comcast bitched about my Motorola for 2 years. Screw it. I'll monitor thread, but for now, I'm off the program.
                            Nbbe627a8-720e-48e1-87a4-390519e414ca-image.png

                            Peder

                            MAIN - pfSense+ 24.11-RELEASE - Adlink MXE-5401, i7, 16 GB RAM, 64 GB SSD. 500 GB HDD for SyslogNG
                            BACKUP - pfSense+ 23.01-RELEASE - Hyper-V Virtual Machine, Gen 1, 2 v-CPUs, 3 GB RAM, 8GB VHDX (Dynamic)

                            T 1 Reply Last reply Aug 25, 2019, 4:39 PM Reply Quote 0
                            • T
                              tman222 @provels
                              last edited by Aug 25, 2019, 4:39 PM

                              @provels said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                              @tman222 BB goes to A and Speed tanks when I reduced DL streams from 24 to 6 or 12. Already bought the new Netgear modem after Comcast bitched about my Motorola for 2 years. Screw it. I'll monitor thread, but for now, I'm off the program.
                              Nbbe627a8-720e-48e1-87a4-390519e414ca-image.png

                              Thanks @provels for getting back to me. If you don't mind me asking, how are you testing? Are the results consistent across different machines and browsers?

                              P 1 Reply Last reply Aug 25, 2019, 4:50 PM Reply Quote 0
                              • P
                                provels @tman222
                                last edited by provels Aug 25, 2019, 4:51 PM Aug 25, 2019, 4:50 PM

                                @tman222 My pfSense is a VM on Hyper-V and I'm testing from the host through the 10Gb Hyper-V interfaces through an Intel I340 Gb card hosting the v-switches via Cat6 to the modem. It's the only wired machine I have and no diff with other browsers. Results are completely random. Thanks for the help, but I'm not thinking it's worth the effort.

                                Peder

                                MAIN - pfSense+ 24.11-RELEASE - Adlink MXE-5401, i7, 16 GB RAM, 64 GB SSD. 500 GB HDD for SyslogNG
                                BACKUP - pfSense+ 23.01-RELEASE - Hyper-V Virtual Machine, Gen 1, 2 v-CPUs, 3 GB RAM, 8GB VHDX (Dynamic)

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • W
                                  wgstarks @tman222
                                  last edited by Aug 25, 2019, 9:38 PM

                                  @tman222 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                                  @wgstarks - what are your fq-codel parameters set to? One thing you might try is increasing the the value for the limit parameter. Here is a a link to some good documentation on what each parameter does:
                                  http://caia.swin.edu.au/freebsd/aqm/downloads.html
                                  Hope this helps.

                                  Limiters:
                                  00001:  25.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0 
                                  q131073  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65537 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                   sched 65537 type FIFO flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
                                  00002: 400.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0 
                                  q131074  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65538 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                   sched 65538 type FIFO flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
                                  
                                  
                                  Schedulers:
                                  00001:  25.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0 
                                  q65537  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 1 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                   sched 1 type FQ_CODEL flags 0x0 0 buckets 1 active
                                   FQ_CODEL target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 1514 limit 10240 flows 1024 NoECN
                                     Children flowsets: 1 
                                  BKT Prot ___Source IP/port____ ____Dest. IP/port____ Tot_pkt/bytes Pkt/Byte Drp
                                    0 ip           0.0.0.0/0             0.0.0.0/0        1     1390  0    0   0
                                  00002: 400.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0 
                                  q65538  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 2 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                   sched 2 type FQ_CODEL flags 0x0 0 buckets 1 active
                                   FQ_CODEL target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 1514 limit 10240 flows 1024 NoECN
                                     Children flowsets: 2 
                                    0 ip           0.0.0.0/0             0.0.0.0/0        1       90  0    0   0
                                  
                                  
                                  Queues:
                                  q00001  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 1 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                  q00002  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 2 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                  

                                  These settings were based on speedtest results.
                                  Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

                                  Box: SG-4200

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • W
                                    wgstarks @tman222
                                    last edited by Aug 25, 2019, 9:56 PM

                                    @tman222 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                                    @wgstarks - what are your fq-codel parameters set to? One thing you might try is increasing the the value for the limit parameter.

                                    The limit was set at default 10240 packets. I increased that to 10340, but I'm wondering if that is too small to make any difference. Should I try a larger increase?

                                    Box: SG-4200

                                    T 1 Reply Last reply Aug 26, 2019, 1:57 AM Reply Quote 0
                                    • T
                                      tman222 @wgstarks
                                      last edited by Aug 26, 2019, 1:57 AM

                                      @wgstarks said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                                      @tman222 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                                      @wgstarks - what are your fq-codel parameters set to? One thing you might try is increasing the the value for the limit parameter.

                                      The limit was set at default 10240 packets. I increased that to 10340, but I'm wondering if that is too small to make any difference. Should I try a larger increase?

                                      When I saw these messages I ended up doubling the limit value from 10240 to 20480. That might be over-compensating somewhat, but thankfully I have not had any issues since. Hope this helps.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • P
                                        Pentangle @jasonraymundo31
                                        last edited by Pentangle Aug 26, 2019, 11:21 AM Aug 26, 2019, 11:19 AM

                                        @jasonraymundo31 I'll give it a try.

                                        Limiters

                                        Floating Rules

                                        You can see what I meant regarding having different limiters per WAN connection, and a single queue inside each limiter. In the second picture you can also see the use of a floating rule per IPv4 or IPv6 version of each WAN connection. In this instance my IPv6 is provided by Hurricane Electric, and is relatively irrelevant in this matter as it's so rarely used.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • J
                                          JonH @uptownVagrant
                                          last edited by Aug 30, 2019, 2:42 AM

                                          Have applied settings @uptownVagrant described in post of 27Nov. Running a traceroute (on iMac) I get unexpected results as others have posted.

                                          traceroute google.com
                                          traceroute to google.com (172.217.5.110), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
                                           1  pfsense.firewall.localdomain (192.168.10.1)  0.531 ms  0.247 ms  0.224 ms
                                           2  sfo03s07-in-f110.1e100.net (172.217.5.110)  0.942 ms  0.838 ms  0.906 ms
                                           3  sfo03s07-in-f110.1e100.net (172.217.5.110)  5.972 ms  9.392 ms  7.845 ms
                                          <snip>
                                          11  sfo03s07-in-f110.1e100.net (172.217.5.110)  9.272 ms  8.283 ms  8.661 ms
                                          

                                          With Floating Rules disabled it works normally

                                          traceroute google.com
                                          traceroute to google.com (172.217.5.110), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
                                           1  pfsense.firewall.localdomain (192.168.10.1)  0.389 ms  0.156 ms  0.243 ms
                                           2  192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254)  0.815 ms  0.810 ms  0.733 ms
                                           3  <snip>
                                           9  * * *
                                          10  108.170.237.106 (108.170.237.106)  8.826 ms
                                              72.14.235.2 (72.14.235.2)  9.178 ms
                                              74.125.252.150 (74.125.252.150)  8.790 ms
                                          11  108.170.236.61 (108.170.236.61)  8.752 ms
                                              sfo03s07-in-f110.1e100.net (172.217.5.110)  8.728 ms
                                              108.170.236.61 (108.170.236.61)  8.469 ms
                                          
                                          

                                          I think my limiters & rules are the same, EXCEPT I use pfBlockerNG and it has rules at the TOP of Floating.

                                          Limiter:

                                          Limiters:
                                          00001: 838.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0
                                          q131073  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65537 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                           sched 65537 type FIFO flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
                                          00002: 910.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0
                                          q131074  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65538 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                           sched 65538 type FIFO flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
                                          
                                          Schedulers:
                                          00001: 838.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0
                                          q65537  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 1 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                           sched 1 type FQ_CODEL flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
                                           FQ_CODEL target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 300 limit 10240 flows 4096 NoECN
                                             Children flowsets: 1
                                          00002: 910.000 Mbit/s    0 ms burst 0
                                          q65538  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 2 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                           sched 2 type FQ_CODEL flags 0x0 0 buckets 0 active
                                           FQ_CODEL target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 300 limit 10240 flows 4096 NoECN
                                             Children flowsets: 2
                                          
                                          Queues:
                                          q00001  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 1 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                          q00002  50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 2 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 droptail
                                          
                                          

                                          pfctl -vvsr | grep “Codel”

                                          @124(1566879036) pass out quick on igb0 reply-to (igb0 x.x.x.1) inet proto icmp all icmp-type trace keep state label "USER_RULE: work around for fq_Codel limiter"
                                          @125(1566882242) pass quick on igb0 inet proto icmp all icmp-type echorep keep state label "USER_RULE: work around for fq_Codel limiter"
                                          @126(1566882242) pass quick on igb0 inet proto icmp all icmp-type echoreq keep state label "USER_RULE: work around for fq_Codel limiter"
                                          @127(1566882594) match in on igb0 inet all label "USER_RULE: No Improvement in Buffer Bloat: WAN in Codel limi..." dnqueue(1, 2)
                                          @128(1566795208) match out on igb0 inet all label "USER_RULE: No Improvement in Buffer Bloat: WAN out Codel lim..." dnqueue(2, 1)

                                          /tmp/rules.limiter

                                          pipe 1 config  bw 838Mb droptail
                                          sched 1 config pipe 1 type fq_codel target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 300 limit 10240 flows 4096 noecn
                                          queue 1 config pipe 1 droptail
                                           
                                          
                                          pipe 2 config  bw 910Mb droptail
                                          sched 2 config pipe 2 type fq_codel target 5ms interval 100ms quantum 300 limit 10240 flows 4096 noecn
                                          queue 2 config pipe 2 droptail
                                          
                                          

                                          Any ideas of why I still have incorrect traceroute?

                                          F 1 Reply Last reply Dec 8, 2019, 10:33 PM Reply Quote 0
                                          926 out of 1108
                                          • First post
                                            926/1108
                                            Last post
                                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
                                            This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
                                            consent.not_received