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

    Problem with Qos and P2P traffic

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Traffic Shaping
    29 Posts 5 Posters 5.4k 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.
    • R
      rtpmomo
      last edited by

      Hello,

      I'm trying for the last few weeks to setup a traffic shaping for p2p traffic.
      The queues are perfectly detected but not dropping enough bandwidth.

      Here is a simple setup to try the issue:

      LAN    4800kbit/s  HFSC
      –-------qLink  Priority: 7 Default queue ECN Bandwidth: 99%
      ---------qP2P  Priority: 1 Default queue ECN Bandwidth: 1%

      Anyone know why the queue qP2P still get close to max speed(90%) when qLink download something?

      PS: Same bug for me: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=73967.0

      Config:
      2.1-RELEASE (i386) nanobsd (1g)
      Intel atom 330 - 1Go - 2 realtek cards

      internet-->modem--->pfsense--->server

      Thanks.
      floatingrules.JPG
      floatingrules.JPG_thumb
      floatingrules2.JPG
      floatingrules2.JPG_thumb

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • R
        rtpmomo
        last edited by

        Is there a way to drop a queue from full speed to very low speed very quickly?

        Torrents with to many connections don't slow but with a few connections they slow down a lot.

        Maybe a buffer problem from the nics?

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • R
          rtpmomo
          last edited by

          I'm doing something wrong?

          The ping go very high and lot off packet loss.

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

            Packet loss is expected when you have drops from one queue to make bandwidth available to another queue.  I have also struggled with HFSC for a few weeks.  I finally gave up and switched to PRIQ on the advice of JimP.  It's not very hard at all to make a few rules to move high-level traffic to the priority queue, and all else can go to the P2P queue.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              sideout
              last edited by

              From what I understand about PRIQ you can have the same thing happen as a higher priority queue gets processes ahead of a lower priority queue. So if your higher priority queues are always full then the packets for the lower queues get dropped.

              I would be interested in seeing how you have the queues setup with PRIQ.

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

                Yes, PRIQ can be harsh to lower queues, but unless you've got a link that's saturated much of the time and you don't need to guarantee a minimum service level for the low queues, it shouldn't be a problem in reality.  In my config, I have only a few queues:  VoIP is top (7), ACK next (6), HTTP/S, DNS and RTSP next (4), everything else last (3).  I have a low queue configured with a limiter, but I don't use it.  Having a default queue handle non-classified traffic is good enough for my needs at the moment.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • R
                  rtpmomo
                  last edited by

                  I've tried with PRIQ, but same as before :(

                  The detection of the traffic type works just fine with HFSC and PRIQ

                  I've got LAN Side:

                  • 1% P2P

                  • 61% HTTP

                  • 20% ACK

                  • 4% Voip

                  • 4% Games

                  • 10% Other

                  In this configuration when there is only P2P, they get all the BW -> perfectly normal
                  But when there is P2P and HTTP, p2p still get all the BW if there is lot of connections(HFSC and PRIQ)

                  BW download: 5000kbit/s

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • S
                    sideout
                    last edited by

                    You could try setting a limiter for TCP traffic coming from your LAN similar to https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=63531.0

                    I did this in my setup and it does work.  Does it limit all TCP streams , yes it does but at least it gets you a starting point to limit bandwidth and not let torrent's take it all.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • R
                      rtpmomo
                      last edited by

                      But the problem is,  I want the torrent to have full BW when there is no other DL.

                      The p2p traffic get drop a little, but still get all BW. Maybe it's impossible to do that?

                      pftop.JPG
                      pftop.JPG_thumb

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        sideout
                        last edited by

                        Why are you applying the floating rule to the LAN interface? From what I understand of floating rules you dont want to apply them there.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • R
                          rtpmomo
                          last edited by

                          To match the download traffic. I've got only 5Mbit/s.

                          I use pfsense for home usage that way:
                          internet->modem->pfsense->lan

                          The Upperlimit from HFSC Service Curve works fine.. i don't now why the bandwidth share doesn't.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • S
                            sideout
                            last edited by

                            I understand that you only have 5Mbit of download but for Floating rules I think you want to select the WAN interface not the LAN.  Maybe try that and see if it makes a difference?

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • R
                              rtpmomo
                              last edited by

                              Because the WAN side have no LAN ip address, i need to match a LAN ip address and not port. The only way is to put the floating rule on the LAN side.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • S
                                sideout
                                last edited by

                                You dont have the quick option checked on the rules.  Have you done that?  If you do not have that option checked it still processes the rest of the rules.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • R
                                  rtpmomo
                                  last edited by

                                  I've try but nothing change.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • S
                                    sideout
                                    last edited by

                                    sorry i can't be of more help.  I dont worry about P2P in my setup as I have the limiter defining a hard set bandwidth that all TCP streams share equally.  I dont care if it is P2P or straight HTTP download , they only get x% of the bandwidth to share among all the clients requesting it.

                                    I would search this forum and others to see what other people have tried.

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

                                      Are you really on 2.1?  You might want to consider upgrading to current.  No use wasting time trying to work with a bug that may have already been fixed.

                                      I also noticed that you have drops on your P2P queue but not many others.  This shows me that your other queues are getting higher priority as expected.  Sideout is right in that your floating rules shouldn't target a particular interface.  That's what makes them floating rules.

                                      Did you go through the wizard or did you build your queues manually?

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • R
                                        rtpmomo
                                        last edited by

                                        Thanks sideout for your help!

                                        I've this version:
                                        2.1.2-RELEASE (amd64)
                                        built on Thu Apr 10 05:42:41 EDT 2014

                                        I create the rules via the wizard then change manually some speed settings.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • S
                                          sideout
                                          last edited by

                                          I am on 2.1.3 built on May 10th.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • R
                                            rtpmomo
                                            last edited by

                                            I will try to do it again via the wizard and see what append.

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