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?



  • @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.



  • @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.



  • 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?



  • @JonH I have the same problem, and after reading 600 more posts in this topic, I believe I have the answer for you.

    You're using a traceroute that uses UDP by default, and you're shaping TCP and UDP, and this is a bug in pfSense.

    You can work around it by using ICMP for traceroutes, e.g. (disclaimer: I'm using Linux):

    alias traceroute='traceroute -I'
    

    Some here have mentioned that you may also be able to work around it by applying the limits on LAN rules, not floating rules, however the alias is good enough for me for now, so I stopped reading at around 600 posts and can't show you what to do there :)



  • @forbiddenlake Thanks for this info. I backed out of fq_codel a couple of months ago but may revisit it using the info you provided.



  • What I don't understand is that with no limiters and QOS disciplines not enabled, my traceroutes are still not working. Where else could there be an issue? I don't need qos now with gigabit fiber.



  • @forbiddenlake said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    @JonH I have the same problem, and after reading 600 more posts in this topic, I believe I have the answer for you.

    You're using a traceroute that uses UDP by default, and you're shaping TCP and UDP, and this is a bug in pfSense.

    You can work around it by using ICMP for traceroutes, e.g. (disclaimer: I'm using Linux):

    alias traceroute='traceroute -I'
    

    Some here have mentioned that you may also be able to work around it by applying the limits on LAN rules, not floating rules, however the alias is good enough for me for now, so I stopped reading at around 600 posts and can't show you what to do there :)

    Hi, you have details of this bug? thanks.



  • @chrcoluk I believe this "bug" is being referenced. Certain configuration will cause pfSense to not decrease the TTL when forwarding. Policy routing is used with direction=out limiters, so it's a common cause of the behavior folks are seeing in this thread where traceroute doesn't work. If you're using configuration similar to this, there is a provision for ICMP traceroute but if you are using a traceroute program that is using UDP packets then those packets would use policy routing and the TTL would not decrease on those packets at pfSense.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @robnitro said in Playing with fq_codel in 2.4:

    What I don't understand is that with no limiters and QOS disciplines not enabled, my traceroutes are still not working. Where else could there be an issue? I don't need qos now with gigabit fiber.

    The ISP could be the issue. I know Verizon has issues with traceroutes not showing properly in some areas, essentially showing your router then the destination host in a 2-hop traceroute (or more if you have multiple routers between you and Verizon).

    This thread on DSLReports shows it starting back in late 2018, but still noted as happening in August this year in the thread. I'm still seeing the issue though. Has VZ disabled TTL propagation?



  • Hi guys an update from myself.

    I did some more messing around with my limiters and changed my main pipe to this.

    FQ_PIE target 5ms tupdate 15ms alpha 0.125 beta 1.25 max_burst 150ms max_ecnth 0.1 quantum 300 limit 1000 flows 1024 ECN CapDrop TS Derand

    also

    q131073 50 sl. 0 flows (1 buckets) sched 65537 weight 0 lmax 0 pri 0 AQM CoDel target 5ms interval 100ms NoECN

    So I ditched droptail.

    Now on downstream congestion it performs "way" better. I do still have to provide a sizely overhead for it to not affect latency, but on FQ_CODEL with droptail I needed to supply a massive 50-60% overhead, on this new configuration 2% isnt enough but it seems 12% is. I have yet to try anything between 2% and 12% to see how low I Can get it, but already 12% I consider a massive improvement. :)

    Also the masking is set to on src /24 not dest.



  • @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 ?.



  • @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.



  • 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.



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



  • @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 :)



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



  • 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.



  • @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.



  • This post is deleted!


  • Não tive mais problemas depois que fiz essa configuração :

    Imagem.png



  • @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.



  • @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



  • @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]
    


  • 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.



  • This post is deleted!


  • 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.



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



  • @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.


Log in to reply