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.
    • B
      bobbenheim @NinthWave
      last edited by

      @ninthwave try ticking off ecn under limiter

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