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 1.7m 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.
    • N
      NinthWave @bobbenheim
      last edited by

      @bobbenheim
      No result. Up speed keeps dying after a few seconds.
      Which screen capture can I add to help figure out ?

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

        @ninthwave Have you changed any other settings than applying fq-codel? You could try running TCP Optimizer if you are using windows.

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

          @larrikin said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

          For those who want to know how exactly I got it working, you can find the instructions here:

          https://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/pfsense_traffic_shaping

          A big thanks to @TheNarc for pointing me in this direction.

          Also a big thanks to all the others who contributed to helping me troubleshoot. I am most grateful you took your own personal time to help me.

          Thanks for this. I was running the dummynet version and after a few months I started to get my bandwidth fucked all the time... I figured something must have bugged out and did a fresh install and kept having the same issue.... Without dummynet and a ton of bufferbloat I was getting 990mbps download and 40 mbps upload.... My package from isp is 1gb/30mbps upload. Dummynet was giving me anywhere from 150mbps to 300mbps download and 0.1mbps upload.

          I decided to go the wizard ALTQ version which is listed in your link and now I have A for bufferbloat and 980mbps download and 35 mbps upload. I'm satisfied with this thanks!

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • N
            NinthWave @NinthWave
            last edited by

            @ninthwave said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

            @uptownvagrant
            When you made the post with the 100/100 connection, how did you come with the bandwidth values for IN and OUT ?

            I have tried your settings but the upload is now very bad.
            08477597-b665-48ff-a147-fae31ab3ca96-image.png

            Sometimes it even gets down to zero.

            Any idea ?

            Maybe I should point out that I have a VOIP service which the vast majority of those having great result don't use.

            Plus, I have enabled OpenVPN that I rarely use to check my IP cameras from my cell when I out. But from I have read, the OpenVPN service might be having an effect.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • A
              andresmorago @uptownVagrant
              last edited by andresmorago

              @uptownvagrant said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

              WAN-Out FQ-CoDel queue

              Hello to all
              I have been trying to configure my limiters based on @uptownVagrant tutorial. Im having some issues with the upload speeds as the Bandwidth parameter under the FQ_CODEL_OUT doesnt seem to correctly work for me.
              52711a59-3926-449a-aa4e-b68a5ccf494a-image.png

              i have a 150/10 cable connection which, without traffic shaper provides the following speed results. they are according to what i pay for.

              Server: Movistar - Barranquilla (id = 17577)
                           ISP: Telmex Colombia S.A.
                       Latency:    41.25 ms   (2.60 ms jitter)
                      Download:   156.14 Mbps (data used: 152.1 MB)
                        Upload:    11.07 Mbps (data used: 11.5 MB)
                   Packet Loss:     0.0%
              

              Setting the upload to 9 Mbits/s will completely block all uploads from my LAN clients. internet access is pretty much dead with this setup.

                Server: Movistar - Barranquilla (id = 17577)
                   ISP: Telmex Colombia S.A.
               Latency:    36.99 ms   (3.52 ms jitter)
              Download:   140.77 Mbps (data used: 171.6 MB)
              Upload:     FAILED
              [error] Protocol error: Did not receive HELLO
              

              so i decided to "illogically" increase the upload. test with 50 Mbits/s

                Server: Movistar - Barranquilla (id = 17577)
                   ISP: Telmex Colombia S.A.
               Latency:    43.55 ms   (4.42 ms jitter)
              Download:   142.25 Mbps (data used: 193.6 MB)
                Upload:     4.07 Mbps (data used: 7.0 MB)
              Packet Loss:     0.0%
              

              i increased the upload parameter one more time. this time to 100 Mbit/s (which is 10x larger than my real upload speed)

                Server: Movistar - Barranquilla (id = 17577)
                   ISP: Telmex Colombia S.A.
               Latency:    42.05 ms   (3.65 ms jitter)
              Download:   139.95 Mbps (data used: 189.6 MB)
                Upload:    10.10 Mbps (data used: 16.5 MB)
              Packet Loss:     0.0%
              

              is there anything im missing or omitting on my setup?
              why does the upload parameter seem to divide the upload speed by 10?

              Here are my parameters so far:

              DOWNLOAD
              f87b4e1b-d92c-4eda-8eca-3be45fe2f891-image.png


              alt text

              M P 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • M
                mind12 @andresmorago
                last edited by

                @andresmorago Seems like you have switched the limit and flows parameter values.
                Limit should be 10240 and flows 20480

                R 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • R
                  Ricardox @mind12
                  last edited by

                  @mind12 For me so it works perfectlyImagem-5.png Imagem-4.png Imagem-3.png Imagem-2.png Imagem-1.jpg

                  M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • M
                    mind12 @Ricardox
                    last edited by

                    @ricardox You also have 10240 configured for the limiter not 20480.

                    Can you achieve your max speed with such a low queue lengths?
                    I lost about 15Mbit/s from my 150Mbit download even with a 10K queue length.

                    Why is the gateway empty for the In queue fw rule? I thought it's a must.
                    And what's that 100 Weight for in the child queue? Never saw that elsewhere.

                    Thx

                    Z R 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • Z
                      zwck @mind12
                      last edited by

                      @mind12 is there a general rule of thumb how to choose target interval quantum limit and flow ?

                      M R 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M
                        mind12 @zwck
                        last edited by

                        @zwck
                        Idk, I have just used the same working config as others here from this post: https://forum.netgate.com/topic/112527/playing-with-fq_codel-in-2-4/815

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • P
                          Pentangle @andresmorago
                          last edited by

                          @andresmorago Check out your floating firewall rules in/out pipes - are they switched?

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • R
                            Ricardox @mind12
                            last edited by

                            @mind12 For my 200/100 MB network I have no loss of speed. X86 PC

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • R
                              Ricardox @zwck
                              last edited by

                              @zwck I believe not, change the values and test, for my network these values work well.

                              Z 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • Z
                                zwck @Ricardox
                                last edited by

                                @ricardox whats your advertised line speed?

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • KOMK
                                  KOM
                                  last edited by

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

                                    I don't mean to hijack the thread, but has anyone else seen any catastrophic issues with adjusting fq_codel parameters since upgrading to 2.5.0? I was playing with one of my systems that had limit and flows both set to 1024. The consensus - as much as there is one - seems to be that 10240 and 20480, respectively, may yield better results so long as you're not memory constrained. I have 4GB and it was rarely more than 20 to 30% utilized so I thought I'd try.

                                    Now, for full disclosure, there was some negligence on my part and I was following @andresmorago's post which accidentally had these values flipped (so 20480 for limit and 10240 for flows). When I set those values and applied, the pfSense system became unresponsive (even to pings). I eventually had to resort to hard powering it off, but it didn't come back when I turned it back on either. So I connected a monitor and was able to observe that at some point in the boot process, it began rapidly spamming the period character (.), and did so at such a rate that it was impossible to view the last boot message before this happened. If I were better versed in FreeBSD I may have known what to do to glean more useful information, but I had unhappy users so I just resorted to doing a fresh 2.5.0 installation and restoration of a config backup.

                                    Also of note, after that config backup, I threw caution to the wind and tried to update the parameters again, but this time to limit 10240 and flows 20480. That time, which I clicked apply, the system spontaneously rebooted. It did come back, and the new values had been applied, but I don't know what happened there.

                                    So this isn't really a support request, more just wondering if anyone else has seen any weirdness along these lines. I'm wary of adjusting these parameters any more now as well lest I need to perform a full reinstallation again. I also can't directly implicate 2.5.0 specifically here, although I believe this was the first time I changed the fq_codel params since upgrading, and I know that prior to the upgrade I had done a lot of experimentation with changing them without any issues.

                                    P 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • P
                                      Pentangle @TheNarc
                                      last edited by

                                      @thenarc Not seen anything like that, but I was aware that the traffic shaping in earlier pfSense instances could play havoc with the connection if it changed for some other reason. I have recently built a v2.5.0 fresh instance and configured it with FQ_CoDel with no issues.

                                      T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • T
                                        TheNarc @Pentangle
                                        last edited by

                                        @pentangle Thanks for the input. I'd feel better had I not seen the spontaneous reset after adjusting these parameters following a fresh install; although it was a fresh install plus a config restore, so perhaps I pulled in some invalid configuration along with it. Just didn't have the stamina at the time to re-configure everything from scratch ;)

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • M
                                          mind12
                                          last edited by

                                          I have applied the same settings for my 150/10 Mb connection but my download speed wont move above 130Mb. Upload is fine. Checked CPU usage also during the speedtest but it's fine abou 30% utilization at all.

                                          These are my config, similar to @Ricardox 's:
                                          Pfsense VM with Intel NICs 2CPU 4GB RAM (about 60% utilized)
                                          All network hardware offload off because of suricata inline mode.

                                          DownLimiter:
                                          147Mb, Tail Drop - FQ_CODEL (5,100,300,10240,20480), Queue 10000, ECN off
                                          DownQueue:
                                          Taildrop, ECN off

                                          Any idea/tweak I could try?

                                          R 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • R
                                            Ricardox @mind12
                                            last edited by Ricardox

                                            @mind12 Installed Open-VM-Tools? For my 200/100 MB network I have no loss of speed. X86 PC!
                                            realtek gigabit network cardVelocidade.jpg

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