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 1.6m 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.
    • F
      fiddlybytes @w0w
      last edited by fiddlybytes

      @w0w said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

      both are on the same LAN

      I have had the same issues with pf .

      FQ_Codel in 2.4.4 doesnt work with floating rules.

      Only works via gui as a lan limiter with children and weighted subqueues and even so tcp and udp traffic (udp voip) still experiences spikes under tcp load. ; Added that I have udp voip sub-queues (weighted) under the parent limiter,if not used like this fq_codel and fq_pie (with no interface shaping) its a mess.

      On top of this traffic shapers on the interfaces always hinders the floating rule method so I have disabled traffic shping on the interfaces as per the linux method.

      What is odd that fq_codel actually works with all ipv4 traffic on debian with all protocols very well,when applied to the wan i/f.

      With freebsd for some reason fq_pie only seems to work with udp packets without shaping all ipv4???,whereas fq_codel with altq only works with tcp? as per the original codel implementation.

      Hoping smart queuing works soon in the distribution as fq-codel does not perform the same as linux by far.

      Anyone else had this issue ?.

      B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • B
        bobbenheim @fiddlybytes
        last edited by bobbenheim

        @m8ee how does your rules look like? I have not had any problems getting fq-CoDel to work in either 2.4.4 or 2.4.5 with limiters and floating rules.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • Z
          Zeny001
          last edited by

          Hi all,

          I'm a new PFsense user here.

          I set up my FQ_Codel in my fresh install as per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8nL81DzTlU

          However I get a bunch of flowset errors in my syslog any ideas? I've been reading it's a bug but these messages are from 2017... and I'm unsure if they're still a thing in 2020? I'm currently at work on break and decided to chip in my concern.

          Is the video guide maybe outdated? Does anyone have the 2020 version?

          Thanks.

          B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • B
            bobbenheim @Zeny001
            last edited by

            @Zeny001 try setting queue management algorithm under the queues to Tail drop and see if that helps.

            Z 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • Z
              Zeny001 @bobbenheim
              last edited by Zeny001

              @bobbenheim

              Wow. That did it. From C bufferbloat on DSLreports to A+.

              Thanks a bunch. For anyone having trouble remember to uncheck ECN since tail drop does not support it

              I lost about 300mbps of bandwidth though.

              I have a gigabit connection and I'm getting about 600mbps now, was getting 900ish before. I dont really care though, but if anyones got any tips let me know :)

              B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • B
                bobbenheim @Zeny001
                last edited by

                @Zeny001 you could try lowering limit by a factor of ten and increase flows by the same and see if that makes a difference.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • J
                  jgalak
                  last edited by

                  Just wanted to say thanks - I applied the technique in the video and my Bufferbloat and Quality on the DSL reports test went from C/C to A/A+. Hopefully this will resolve some weird network issues I've been having.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • T
                    tman222 @uptownVagrant
                    last edited by

                    @uptownVagrant - wanted to thank you for posting these detailed steps on how to setup FQ-CoDel using floating rules.

                    https://forum.netgate.com/topic/112527/playing-with-fq_codel-in-2-4/815

                    Originally I had FQ-CoDel setup on my LAN interfaces, but using floating rules the approach is definitely simplified. Everything is working great and as expected. I use Linux so do run into the issue with traceroute (mentioned earlier in this thread) because UDP is used by default. Easily worked around though by using traceroute -I instead (which will use ICMP). Do you have any suggestions how to modify the floating rules so that traceroute using UDP might work properly?

                    Thanks in advance.

                    B T 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • R
                      Ricardox
                      last edited by

                      This post is deleted!
                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • R
                        Ricardox
                        last edited by

                        Não tive mais problemas depois que fiz essa configuração :

                        Imagem.png

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • B
                          bobbenheim @tman222
                          last edited by

                          @tman222 using traceroute in windows gives the same problem, the only solution so far seems to be making a rule omitting ICMP traffic from FQ-CoDel.
                          Weird thing is that it works fine with IPfire which i briefly tried some months ago, so it might be something with the FreeBSD implementation of it.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • T
                            tomashk @tman222
                            last edited by

                            @tman222 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                            Do you have any suggestions how to modify the floating rules so that traceroute using UDP might work properly?

                            For me the following works:
                            Create floating rule with limiters (with match action) not on "WAN out" but on "LAN/VLAN in" (in one floating rule you can select multiple interfaces/vlans) for traffic with source "any" and destination "not-your-local-networks-alias" - that works great for me, and for my easy setup I need only one floating rule for all my VLANS and with "in" traffic you don't need to set gateway.

                            Unfortunately it won't work for traffic with source IP of your pfsense router

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • K
                              kasper93 @uptownVagrant
                              last edited by kasper93

                              @uptownVagrant said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                              1.) Add quick pass floating rule to handle ICMP traceroute. This rule matches ICMP traceroute packets so that they are not matched by the WAN-Out limiter rule that utilizes policy routing. Policy routing breaks traceroute.

                              Are you guys actually sure it is this issue? The linked doc page and bug #932 is quite the opposite what we see here. It makes perfect sense that policy routing in certain cases does not decrease TTL making router (pfsense box) invisible in traceroute, but the rest of the hops looks ok.

                              Our issue is that it shows only one hop which is destination and nothing else. Which arguably doesn't make sense. Have anyone actually look into it or just found not quite similar traceroute issue and call it a day?

                              With Limiter:

                                1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  <...> [192.168.0.1]
                                2     *        *        *     Request timed out.
                                3    11 ms    14 ms     8 ms  one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
                                4    12 ms    11 ms    12 ms  one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
                                5    12 ms    14 ms    18 ms  one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
                                6    13 ms    13 ms    11 ms  one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
                                7    13 ms    10 ms    11 ms  one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
                                8    55 ms    54 ms    54 ms  one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
                                9    49 ms    49 ms    51 ms  one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
                               10    37 ms    37 ms    56 ms  one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
                               11    55 ms    52 ms    50 ms  one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
                              

                              Without Limiter:

                                1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  <...> [192.168.0.1]
                                2     *        *        *     Request timed out.
                                <removed some hops, but they are properly shown>
                                8    55 ms    53 ms    50 ms  ae-12.r24.amstnl02.nl.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.3.81]
                                9    59 ms    54 ms    53 ms  ae-7.r03.amstnl02.nl.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.103]
                               10    58 ms    59 ms    60 ms  81.20.65.150
                               11    56 ms    64 ms    56 ms  one.one.one.one [1.1.1.1]
                              
                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • P
                                PNet
                                last edited by PNet

                                I wanted to check to see if anyone else is having issues with the newly released 2.4.5 (released 2020-03-26) using fq_codel. I had a perfectly working limiter setup with 2.4.4_3 and upgraded to 2.4.5 and now It will no longer load up the limiter, having the following in the logs:

                                • php-fpm[351]: /rc.filter_configure_sync: The command '/sbin/kldload dummynet' returned exit code '1', the output was 'kldload: can't load dummynet: No such file or directory'
                                • php-fpm[351]: /rc.filter_configure_sync: The command '/sbin/ipfw /tmp/rules.limiter' returned exit code '1', the output was 'Line 2: setsockopt(IP_DUMMYNET_CONFIGURE): Protocol not available'

                                I completely removed my limiters/queue and floating rule, recreated within the gui and the same occurs. Was the dummynet kernel module not built with the 2.4.5 release or can I manually add it back? I found an old thread that this happened within the builds back in 2010 but nothing else current. At this point limiters are dead for me due to the non existent dummynet kernel module.

                                uname info:
                                FreeBSD XXXXXXXXXX 11.3-STABLE FreeBSD 11.3-STABLE #236 21cbb70bbd1(RELENG_2_4_5): Tue Mar 24 15:26:53 EDT 2020 root@buildbot1-nyi.netgate.com:/build/ce-crossbuild-245/obj/amd64/YNx4Qq3j/build/ce-crossbuild-245/sources/FreeBSD-src/sys/pfSense amd64

                                Just an FYI I resolved the issue incase anyone else encounters this. Not sure if it is the correct fix. but I utilize ZFS instead of UFS, and it appears the old /boot use to actually be /bootpool/boot but after upgrade to 2.4.5 it has a new /boot under the root filesystem. This new /boot did not contain the /boot/kernel subdirectory and kernel modules so I did the following and rebooted
                                mkdir /boot/kernel
                                # cp -p /bootpool/boot/kernel/* /boot/kernel/
                                # cp -p /boot/loader.conf /boot/loader.conf.orig
                                # cp /bootpool/boot/loader.conf /boot/loader.conf

                                Then rebooted and the system was able to load the dummynet kernel module - resolved.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • K
                                  kasper93
                                  last edited by

                                  This post is deleted!
                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • T
                                    tman222 @uptownVagrant
                                    last edited by

                                    Hi @uptownVagrant - I have a quick question regarding your quick pass floating rule for echo-request and echo-reply from your configuration in post 815:


                                    2.) Add quick pass floating rule to handle ICMP echo-request and echo-reply. This rule matches ping packets so that they are not matched by the limiter rules. See bug 9024 for more info.

                                    Action: Pass
                                    Quick: Tick Apply the action immediately on match.
                                    Interface: WAN
                                    Direction: any
                                    Address Family: IPv4
                                    Protocol: ICMP
                                    ICMP subtypes: Echo reply, Echo Request
                                    Source: any
                                    Destination: any
                                    Description: limiter drop echo-reply under load workaround
                                    Click Save


                                    I see that this rules also allows the firewall (WAN IP) to respond to pings from the internet. How would you change this rule to avoid that (i.e. only allow outgoing ping but not incoming)? Would it just be as simple as changing the Source from "any" to e.g. "WAN Address"?

                                    Thanks in advance.

                                    B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • B
                                      bobbenheim @tman222
                                      last edited by

                                      @tman222 setting direction to "out" and choose your gateway in advanced should give the result you want.

                                      T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • T
                                        tman222 @bobbenheim
                                        last edited by

                                        @bobbenheim said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

                                        @tman222 setting direction to "out" and choose your gateway in advanced should give the result you want.

                                        Thanks @bobbenheim - that worked! I actually did try setting the direction on the rule to "Out" at first, but then outbound pings from LAN interfaces stopped working. Now I see why - I didn't realize I needed to set the gateway in advanced settings. Thanks again.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • D
                                          dtaht
                                          last edited by

                                          @gsakes @uptownVagrant etc. I've been looking for some coherent recommendations for zoom, especially, as to how to improve your videoconferencing experience. Also curious as to how just generic fq_codel is treating that for y'all?

                                          Oy, what a long thread this has been!

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

                                            Hi, I have a problem, if after enabling the limiter I start to download a game that saturates the band and in the meantime I perform a ping, the ping increases from 10 ms to 50 ms.
                                            Here are the screenshots of the settings, my bandwidth is 120/20.
                                            Should I change something?

                                            Screenshot (183).png spoiler

                                            Screenshot (184).png spoiler

                                            Screenshot (185).png

                                            Screenshot (186).png

                                            R 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.