HFSC Config used at 150 person LAN Party
-
Is there a specific reason you don't have qACK configured with any realtime?
-
Thanks for the post.
Limiter is set at 40Mbit so be aware of that.
Where is that? I didn't see an actual limiter defined if that's what you mean. I do see the WAN set to 5.5 Mbps, which I believe is the only thing that needs to be modified to suit the bandwidth?
-
Traffic shaper > Limiter > Download queue - set to 40Mbit
-
Here it is.
-
Is there a specific reason you don't have qACK configured with any realtime?
In the lan party config i have it set to realtime. This is my home / lan party config and i changed it back to just link share here. I set it to realtime of 10 at the LAN.
-
OK, thanks. I thought it was something that was missing from the shaper config.xml. If you have a 40 Mbps limiter, why do you have WAN set to 5.5 Mbps?
-
That is upload limt. The Download queue in the shaper is used in the LAN rule to limt TCP streams. This shares whatever you set in there equally with all machines wanting a TCP stream.
-
If you want to test it , set it 10Mbit , run a speed test. Close all browser windows . Set it to 5Mbit , run a speedtest again.
-
What I mean is, why do you have a 40 Mbps limiter when the WAN queue in the shaper is set to 5.5 Mbps? I thought that if your WAN is set to 5.5 Mbps then your limiter would have to be less than that…?
-
If you look at the rule the limiter is only applied to the LAN. You are looking at the WAN bandwidth on the Traffic shaper which is what you set from your ISP limits.
-
Have you noticed whether HFSC "Priority" actually works or not?
Doesn't the fact that the priority, if set on an HFSC queue, doesn't make it into the pf altq queue config at all pretty much settle that?
-
Have you noticed whether HFSC "Priority" actually works or not?
Doesn't the fact that the priority, if set on an HFSC queue, doesn't make it into the pf altq queue config at all pretty much settle that?
Yes, that along with the fact that the m1/d/m2 parameters are technically how HFSC's prioritization is configured, but I thought I would ask anyway.
-
If you look at the rule the limiter is only applied to the LAN.
OK< that's the part I was missing. You would think I would have picked that up by the names, Download_LAN, Upload_LAN, but no…
-
Yes I try and apply the KISS principle to any of my naming conventions . That way if I get hit by a bus , someone should be able to come in behind me and pick it easily.
Glad you found it.
-
Have you noticed whether HFSC "Priority" actually works or not?
Doesn't the fact that the priority, if set on an HFSC queue, doesn't make it into the pf altq queue config at all pretty much settle that?
Yes, that along with the fact that the m1/d/m2 parameters are technically how HFSC's prioritization is configured, but I thought I would ask anyway.
"Prioritization" is kind of a loaded word, but is the closest concept with a lot of abstract level overlap. I'm not sure the best way to say it, but I guess you could say "m1/d/m2 is how HFSC manages minimum bandwidth and maximum latency". I'm not correcting you, just thinking out loud about the best way to word it to people less familiar with HSFC's concepts.
P.S. Been busy lately, need to check out your HFSC thread again.
-
The problem is this language in the GUI:
For hfsc, the range is 0 to 7. The default is 1. Hfsc queues with a higher priority are preferred in the case of overload.
I have no idea why that is there.
-
From what I have read, priority is not part of the official HFSC spec but some implementations have added it in.
-
"Prioritization" is kind of a loaded word, but is the closest concept with a lot of abstract level overlap. I'm not sure the best way to say it, but I guess you could say "m1/d/m2 is how HFSC manages minimum bandwidth and maximum latency". I'm not correcting you, just thinking out loud about the best way to word it to people less familiar with HSFC's concepts.
Yes, I agree, but it is pertinent as an argument againt the useless "Priority" section in the HFSC shaper GUI.
-
Thanks again for sharing your configs and info sideout.
Did you have any other issues moving from 2.1.5 to 2.2?
-
No I didnt have any issues upgrading with this config.
