Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Traffic Shaping
    59 Posts 20 Posters 17.2k 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.
    • D
      Destello
      last edited by

      This post is deleted!
      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • luckman212L
        luckman212 LAYER 8
        last edited by

        Just adding some notes from redmine...

        Currently this bug (#13026: Limiters do not work) appears to be blocked by the following 2 bugs:

        • #12579: Utilize dnctl(8) to apply changes without reloading filter
        • #13027: Input validation prevents adding a floating match rule with limiters and no gateway

        12579 says "#12003 should be merged first" but even though progress is at 0%, it appears a patch has been merged. 13027 also has a merge request pending. Target on 13027 is 22.09—hope we don't have to wait that long to have functioning limiters again!

        @jimp is there any movement going on with this (imo) important bug? Thanks

        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • M
          marcosm Netgate @luckman212
          last edited by

          @luckman212 It's being worked on.

          luckman212L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • luckman212L
            luckman212 LAYER 8 @marcosm
            last edited by

            @marcos-ng Good to know. I just updated to 22.05.a.20220426.1313 and was going to test a bit, but I'll keep waiting for some news on redmine.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • T thomas.hohm referenced this topic on
            • T thomas.hohm referenced this topic on
            • T thomas.hohm referenced this topic on
            • T thomas.hohm referenced this topic on
            • luckman212L
              luckman212 LAYER 8 @jimp
              last edited by

              Just reporting back here to wrap this up. I've been busy with other stuff but finally got around to retesting this. All working great on 22.05.r.20220604.1403. It's so nice to have this working again! Increased WAF factor by 10x.

              17cdd998-e104-43a2-96d5-8ca4b97e0697-image.png

              B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • B bsod referenced this topic on
              • B
                betapc @luckman212
                last edited by

                @luckman212 Just one question. Did you use the same settings on post # 1 or did you change something?

                Thanks.

                luckman212L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • luckman212L
                  luckman212 LAYER 8 @betapc
                  last edited by

                  @betapc yes I'm using the same settings described in the guide.

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

                    @luckman212 I'm still seeing this issue in 22.05-REL?

                    No matter what limiter I'm putting on the WANDown it's still going full-bandwidth and bufferbloat is suffering.

                    GertjanG N 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • GertjanG
                      Gertjan @Keylimesoda
                      last edited by

                      @keylimesoda said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05:

                      I'm still seeing this issue in 22.05-REL?

                      That's why @luckman212 said :

                      @luckman212 said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05:

                      All working great on 22.05.r.20220604.1403.

                      Go from stock 22.05 to 22.05..r.20220604.1403 and re test ;)

                      No "help me" PM's please. Use the forum, the community will thank you.
                      Edit : and where are the logs ??

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

                        @gertjan Are you sure?
                        Stock 22.05 was 22.05-RELEASE (amd64)
                        built on Wed Jun 22 18:56:13 UTC 2022
                        FreeBSD 12.3-STABLE

                        20220604 is older.
                        And as far as redmine says.
                        https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/13026?tab=history
                        It has been resolved in 22.05

                        GertjanG 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • GertjanG
                          Gertjan @netblues
                          last edited by

                          @netblues said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05:

                          It has been resolved in 22.05

                          I stand corrected I guess.
                          👍

                          No "help me" PM's please. Use the forum, the community will thank you.
                          Edit : and where are the logs ??

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

                            @keylimesoda said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05:

                            @luckman212 I'm still seeing this issue in 22.05-REL?

                            No matter what limiter I'm putting on the WANDown it's still going full-bandwidth and bufferbloat is suffering.

                            Which brings us back to the original question regarding wandown

                            I just checked it on 22.05 and it DOES work.
                            Do a speedtest and see what speed are you getting and if it is consistent.
                            (eg. wan links from wisp's tend to fluctuate in speed)
                            And do keep in mind that wan down can only be controlled indirectly, by dropping tcp packets and hoping that ack-window will take care the rest.
                            If your incoming traffic is e.g. udp and there is no mechanism in the app that utilises udp traffic to request fewer data, there is no way to stop flooding your download.

                            K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • K
                              Keylimesoda @netblues
                              last edited by Keylimesoda

                              @netblues I'm getting different behavior on different speedtests which is odd. Could be the UDP issue?

                              On Ookla and FAST, the WAN down shows as scaling correctly. And in fact on FAST it shows almost no bufferbloat.

                              On Waveform test, it seems to ignore the download limiter, and shows all kinds of wonky behavior around buffer bloat on download (ranging from 20ms to 120ms). Upload is steadier.

                              In an informal test (watching ping times to google.com while running Ookla), I am seeing significant ping impact (from 16ms to 40-70ms) under load, which suggests that something is still off.

                              81b63ca9-7367-4cd8-b8d1-014d5461ca79-image.png

                              cwagzC N 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • cwagzC
                                cwagz @Keylimesoda
                                last edited by

                                @keylimesoda said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05:

                                @netblues I'm getting different behavior on different speedtests which is odd. Could be the UDP issue?

                                On Ookla and FAST, the WAN down shows as scaling correctly. And in fact on FAST it shows almost no bufferbloat.

                                On Waveform test, it seems to ignore the download limiter, and shows all kinds of wonky behavior around buffer bloat on download (ranging from 20ms to 120ms). Upload is steadier.

                                In an informal test (watching ping times to google.com while running Ookla), I am seeing significant ping impact (from 16ms to 40-70ms) under load, which suggests that something is still off.

                                81b63ca9-7367-4cd8-b8d1-014d5461ca79-image.png

                                I have been seeing really weird results on the Waveform test. It seems broken. I have a 1Gbps connection and it will show over 1200Mbps and then go all over the place showing increased latency. I have my limiter set at 940Mbps. Speedtest (Ookla) seems to respect the limiters.

                                Netgate 6100 MAX

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                • N
                                  netblues @Keylimesoda
                                  last edited by

                                  @keylimesoda Try liming to a ridiculous slow rate, something like 10Mbit down., 10Mbit up and see what happens there

                                  If the line suffers from great speed spikes limiters don't work well.
                                  I see this on a install that has a stable ftth line, and a 5g
                                  on the same box.
                                  5g leaves a lot to be desired at C, while ftth is a+ on bufferbloat tests

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

                                    I just went ahead and bought a TAC Pro sub. Order SO22-30515. Hope I can get some assistance next week.

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

                                      @luckman212 said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05:

                                      Firewall > Rules > Floating:

                                      Action: Pass
                                      Quick: checked
                                      Interface: WAN1
                                      Direction: out
                                      Family: IPv4
                                      Protocol: any #[Change this to TCP & UDP by ctrl + click each in drop-down menu]
                                      Source: WAN1 address
                                      Dest: Any
                                      Gateway: WAN1
                                      In/Out Pipe: WAN1UpQ / WAN1DownQ

                                      Now traceroute and icmp will operate correctly without adding extra rules.

                                      dennypageD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • dennypageD
                                        dennypage @mindwolf
                                        last edited by

                                        @mindwolf said in QoS / Traffic Shaping / Limiters / FQ_CODEL on 22.05:

                                        Now traceroute and icmp will operate correctly without adding extra rules.

                                        You may still find value in the general approach. It's a personal preference, but I prefer to exclude ping request/reply from the limiters because I don't want them delayed or dropped under load. I have a separate floating rule for ICMP request/reply just before the limiter assignment rule(s) to achieve this.

                                        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • M
                                          mindwolf @dennypage
                                          last edited by

                                          @dennypage

                                          There are many ways to approach this but my suggestion does take icmp and other protocols out of the equation. The firewall floating rule ONLY includes tcp and udp. I just installed pfsense the other night and curiously ran into the same issues running ping and traceroute with my windows laptop having the “repeating” issue along with dropped pings. This change resolved my issue and still controls bloat. Cake has this feature aimed towards a 11:1 or higher rate.

                                          Finding a way to drop duplicate acks is another avenue worth exploring for extending the ingress bandwidth at the expense of more cpu usage. I started with openwrt and the sqm folks learning much over the years.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • I inferno480 referenced this topic on
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.