Playing with fq_codel in 2.4
-
udp is being dropped also. Unless this is yet another badmodems.com bug?
-
Perhaps a packet size rather than protocol issue
-
I have an APU2C4 and 150/150 FiOS. It looks like I hit about 30 - 40% CPU usage when several clients are downloading from steam using the fq_codel limiter setup mentioned earlier in the thread. I was looking at top and it appears like the load gets spread across all 4 cores of my processor.
Will this always be the case or could the limiters actually cause me to become CPU bound on one core in certain instances? I am moving to 200/200 speed soon. The APU2 runs at 1GHz. I was considering moving to a Celeron J3455 @ 2.3GHz but only if it was needed to handle running fq_codel.
I appreciate any feedback.
-
@rasool said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:
@strangegopher Excellent work!
I installed pfSense and was able to setup fq_codel correctly (without CoDel) using just the WebUI. Here are the steps:1- Create "out" limiter
- Tick Enable
- Name: pipe_out
- Set the bandwidth
- Queue Management Algorithm: Tail Drop
- Scheduler: FQ_CODEL
2- Add new Queue
- Tick "Enable"
- Name: queue_out
- Queue Management Algorithm: Tail Drop
- Save
3- Create "in" limiter
- Tick Enable
- Name: pipe_in
- Set the bandwidth
- Queue Management Algorithm: Tail Drop
- Scheduler: FQ_CODEL
4- Add new Queue
- Tick "Enable"
- Name: queue_in
- Queue Management Algorithm: Tail Drop
- Save
5- Add limiter in firewall rule
- Configure floating rule (as normal)
- In / Out pipe: queue_in / queue_out
I believe these steps prevent "config_aqm Unable to configure flowset, flowset busy!" error and no need for rebooting pfSense.
Could you please test the above setup?
what's the normal way to configure floating rule? can I have more detail about it? like what direction and interface ? also Quick option should be tick ?
-
@knowbe4
I meant by "as normal" as per the youtube video https://youtu.be/o8nL81DzTlU?t=801. Btw, I am not a pfSense expert. I learned how to use the basic features just to help in this forum ;) -
@rasool Thank you very much, I really appreciate it. Keep up the good work
-
@pentangle I can't recreate your results with VoIP. I'm using a cloud provider for VoIP and signaling uses (UDP/5060), RTP (media) uses (UDP/10,000-30,000). DTMF Mode RFC 2833 Payload type 101 and G.711 a-law. I can run an rrul test across pfSense, placing all traffic, except for ICMP, in the 90Mbit in/out FQ-CoDel limiter queues and I place a call during the test. Call quality remains excellent during a 5 minute rrul test.
Did you see any "fq_codel_enqueue over limit" messages in syslog during the speedtest where VoIP and Sonos was cutting out?
Are your using the FQ-CoDel defaults of?
target: 5
interval: 100
quantum: 1514
limit: 10240
flows: 1024 -
@uptownvagrant do you mind sharing your current fq_codel setup ?
-
This is for a very heavily utilized 100/100 Mbps circuit. Hardware is C2758, 8 GB RAM, igb interfaces (Intel I354).
In my testing I may move limiters to other interfaces without recreating them and renaming them. In my examples IN=ingress and OUT=egress. From the perspective of the WAN port, IN is traffic coming into the interface from the Internet and OUT is traffic leaving the interface to the Internet.
Create Limiters:
1.) Create "Out" limiter
- Tick "Enable"
- Name: FQ_CODEL_OUT
- Bandwidth: 96907 Kbit/s
- Mask: None
- Queue Management Algorithm: Tail Drop
- Scheduler: FQ_CODEL
- target: 5
- interval: 100
- quantum: 300
- limit: 10240
- flows: 20480
- Click Save/Apply Changes
2.) Add "Out" queue
- Tick "Enable"
- Name: fq_codel_out_q
- Mask: None
- Queue Management Algorithm: Tail Drop
- Click Save/Apply Changes
3.) Create "In" limiter
- Tick "Enable"
- Name: FQ_CODEL_IN
- Bandwidth: 83886 Kbit/s
- Mask: None
- Queue Management Algorithm: Tail Drop
- Scheduler: FQ_CODEL
- target: 5
- interval: 100
- quantum: 300
- limit: 10240
- flows: 20480
- Click Save/Apply Changes
4.) Add "In" queue
- Tick "Enable"
- Name: fq_codel_in_q
- Mask: None
- Queue Management Algorithm: Tail Drop
- Click Save/Apply Changes
Floating Rules:
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.
- Action: Pass
- Quick: Tick Apply the action immediately on match.
- Interface: WAN
- Direction: out
- Address Family: IPv4
- Protocol: ICMP
- ICMP subtypes: Traceroute
- Source: any
- Destination: any
- Description: policy routing traceroute workaround
- Click Save
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
3.) Add a match rule for incoming state flows so that they're placed into the FQ-CoDel in/out queues
- Action: Match
- Interface: WAN
- Direction: in
- Address Family: IPv4
- Protocol: Any
- Source: any
- Destination: any
- Description: WAN-In FQ-CoDel queue
- Gateway: Default
- In / Out pipe: fq_codel_in_q / fq_codel_out_q
- Click Save
4.) Add a match rule for outgoing state flows so that they're placed into the FQ-CoDel out/in queues
- Action: Match
- Interface: WAN
- Direction: out
- Address Family: IPv4
- Protocol: Any
- Source: any
- Destination: any
- Description: WAN-Out FQ-CoDel queue
- Gateway: WAN_DHCP
- In / Out pipe: fq_codel_out_q / fq_codel_in_q
- Click Save/Apply Changes
Update 2018/01/04: After additional research and testing, I have made changes to FQ-CoDel quantum, limit, and flows in my environment where a 500 Mbps symmetric circuit is in use. I have also made changes to state timeouts on a firewall that consistently averages over 55k filter states.
- Quantum - setting this to 300 will give some priority to smaller packet flows like VoIP. As a reference, a quantum of 300 is used in the OpenWRT sqm scripts and is noted on bufferbloat.net and the mailing list as a good option. Note: Setting quantum below 300 is not advised.
- Limit - if your system is not severely memory constrained, setting this to 20480 packets, which is the max, will further protect against the "fq_codel_enqueue over limit" error. Depending on the flows, in my testing this error typically fires right before pfSense starts to drop many packets and in some instances causes pfSense to become unstable and/or reboot. Note: Setting this over-large packet limit can lead to bad results during slow starts for certain flows.
- Flows - if your system is not severely memory constrained, setting this to 65535 will allow very good flow separation up to 65535 flows. The default 1024 is pretty low for a network with more than a few clients doing anything other than basic web browsing. Note: while the ipfw man page does specify that the maximum acceptable value is 65536, you will find that if you use this max value the firewall will enter a boot loop and you will have to restore a previous configuration. Also, I'm still testing and observing but it appears that on my hardware, each 10240 increase in flows equals about 1ms of added latency under load.
- State Timeouts - under System / Advanced / Firewall & NAT, I set 'Firewall Optimization Options' to Aggressive and 'TCP Established' to 86400.
-
I have a gigabit link on my SG-3100. This is what I'm using and get all A+ on DSLReports. No rules, just the shaper on my main WAN connection.
-
@askmyteapot said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:
I've managed to get around the dropped pings problem by creating a floating rule with:
MATCH on WAN, any direction, ICMP (any subtypes), default gateway and no In/Out Pipes.
Then having it as the very first rule in floating.It doesnt fix the cause of the issue, but should at least allow pings to get through normally.
I’m still working on getting fq_codel configured properly and this thread has been a big help. Haven't completely read all the way through it yet though. Perhaps someone could confirm that this is the proper floating rule to work around the problem with ICMP?
I think I got it right, but am a little behind so perhaps it has been modified.
-
@uptownvagrant said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:
ICMP subtypes: Traceroute
I find Win tracert does not work with your config. Ping does, however. I changed your two workaround rules to one ICMP any in/out & tracert then works.
-
I think you’ll need an ICMP quick pass not match or a lower rule may prevail.
-
@markn6262 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:
I think you’ll need an ICMP quick pass not match or a lower rule may prevail.
Like this?
-
-
@gsmornot I'm glad you're getting all A+ on dslreports.com/speedtest but you traffic shaper is not configured properly IMO. You are letting your ISP manage your WAN ingress buffers or the interface buffers on your firewall are being used. You are only shaping out from WAN.
I'll update this post with graphs to help illustrate my point.
-
The first tracert is what I get with ICMP rule on top of floating as pass quick any and the 2nd tracert is what I get with the same rule as match, quick, any. With match the host name even resolves differently. Perhaps you aren't showing all of your floating rules and their order.
-
@markn6262
1.) What you are seeing in the first example you posted looks to be a properly behaving icmp trace. If you look at my example you will notice that I created a pass quick ICMP Traceroute floating rule in the first position. Maybe you read it as match only?
2.) The second example shows the "loop" folks were talking about earlier in this thread. All of the hops are being listed as the end node. The TTL is not being decreased due to policy routing.
3.) I'm showing all of the floating rules in my example. -
@uptownvagrant My first reply was to @wgstarks. I further replied to your post because I thought your position was in agreement with @wgstarks that a match rule is what is required. Miscommunication.
-
@markn6262 said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:
@uptownvagrant My first reply was to @wgstarks. I further replied to your post because I thought your position was in agreement with @wgstarks that a match rule is what is required. Miscommunication.
Ok. Just because I am easily confused
, I'ld like to confirm that this should be a pass quick and not a match quick?
