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

    Per Stream Fair Share

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Traffic Shaping
    7 Posts 4 Posters 1.9k 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.
    • N
      NOYB
      last edited by

      Is the pfSense traffic shaper capable of doing per stream equal/fair share QoS?

      For instance packets of each src ip - dst ip pair getting it's own queue, and each queue  processed equally such that no one can starve out anyone else, and be protocol and application independent.

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

        Maybe that documentation it this thread https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=63531.0 will help you.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • N
          Nullity
          last edited by

          @NOYB:

          Is the pfSense traffic shaper capable of doing per stream equal/fair share QoS?

          For instance packets of each src ip - dst ip pair getting it's own queue, and each queue  processed equally such that no one can starve out anyone else, and be protocol and application independent.

          pfSense has FAIRQ.
          https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=42690.0

          I use it. No complaints here. With my simple QoS setup I have done some informal tests and it does seem quite "fair".

          Please correct any obvious misinformation in my posts.
          -Not a professional; an arrogant ignoramous.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • E
            Ecnerwal
            last edited by

            Is there any documentation for setting up FAIRQ? The only things I can find on searching are the linked thread, and people asking questions about it. I'd R T F M but TFM seems to be devoid of things to R on the subject.

            pfSense on i5 3470/DQ77MK/16GB/500GB

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • N
              Nullity
              last edited by

              @Ecnerwal:

              Is there any documentation for setting up FAIRQ? The only things I can find on searching are the linked thread, and people asking questions about it. I'd R T F M but TFM seems to be devoid of things to R on the subject.

              There is no need for documentation. You simply select "FAIRQ" as the Scheduler Type when you setup the Traffic Shaper.

              Please correct any obvious misinformation in my posts.
              -Not a professional; an arrogant ignoramous.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • E
                Ecnerwal
                last edited by

                I do not concur that "no documentation is a good thing."

                FAIRQ is not an option in the Wizard setup (at least on 2.1.3, where my applicable system sits for now, but I bet the same is true in 2.1.5) though is IS an option for scheduler type on the shaper, non-wizardly. My experience of the "wizard" is not all that happy anyway. I suppose you could try PRIQ in the wizard and then change it to FAIRQ. Either way it's the moral equivalent of wiggling a screwdriver blindly in a high-voltage box in the hopes that it makes the right connection, with the documentation where it sits now.

                It appears to me that most of what's mentioned in this retired topic from 2010/11 still applies to the shaper today. It certainly feels all too familiar and current. The fact that the shaper documentation (as linked from 2.1) still starts off with 1.2.x and then has 2.0 (work in progress) [but the work has never progressed] is rather depressing.

                https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=26782.msg139435#msg139435

                I have, in fact, given this a try today (PRIQ wizard followed by FAIRQ change) but there are still large areas of "who knows what happened to what I typed into the wizard or if it has any effect, really" that adequate documentation could cure. Likewise the inability to have a hope of "tuning" it any better with no documentation.

                pfSense on i5 3470/DQ77MK/16GB/500GB

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • N
                  Nullity
                  last edited by

                  @Ecnerwal:

                  I do not concur that "no documentation is a good thing."

                  FAIRQ is not an option in the Wizard setup (at least on 2.1.3, where my applicable system sits for now, but I bet the same is true in 2.1.5) though is IS an option for scheduler type on the shaper, non-wizardly. My experience of the "wizard" is not all that happy anyway. I suppose you could try PRIQ in the wizard and then change it to FAIRQ. Either way it's the moral equivalent of wiggling a screwdriver blindly in a high-voltage box in the hopes that it makes the right connection, with the documentation where it sits now.

                  It appears to me that most of what's mentioned in this retired topic from 2010/11 still applies to the shaper today. It certainly feels all too familiar and current. The fact that the shaper documentation (as linked from 2.1) still starts off with 1.2.x and then has 2.0 (work in progress) [but the work has never progressed] is rather depressing.

                  https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=26782.msg139435#msg139435

                  I don't see a question in there…  ???

                  There are (many) more places to find pfSense documentation than the official wiki.
                  I gained a bit of insight by reading source-code for FAIRQ, which was initially introduced in DragonflyBSD. Maybe that will help you too? I'm no C coder, but there are useful comments in the source-code.

                  For a super simple FAIRQ setup, you simply select your outbound interface in the Traffic Shaper, select FAIRQ and click Add queue. I think it is best to explicitly direct traffic into the queue because I think the maintainer of FAIRQ recently fixed a bug that was causing problems when traffic was defaulted into FAIRQ, and I'm not sure if that bugfix has been merged with pfSense's FAIRQ yet. (Disclaimer: I may not know wtf I am talking about.)

                  P.S. - I never said "no documentation is a good thing". Documentation is out there, you just need to find it. I did, and I'm a newb. :)

                  Please correct any obvious misinformation in my posts.
                  -Not a professional; an arrogant ignoramous.

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