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

    Queues bandwidth issues, Queue status show 1 Gbps on 20 Mbps Connection

    Traffic Shaping
    3
    6
    1096
    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.
    • C
      chaos777b
      last edited by

      I'm having some issues with my traffic Shaper queues.
      For one my bandwidth graphs show I'm using 12 KBS in and 4 KBS out
      My Status: Traffic shaper: Queues show I'm using 97.1 Mbps down and 2.86 Mbps up.(at least when I took the screenshot)
      At one point the status was showing that I was using more the 1 Gbps down. I have a 26/5 connection so yeah,… something is off.

      The other issues I have is with my default queue. I have had it configured to priority 3 with linkshare m2 of 20% but it ends up taking up 75% percent of the available bandwidth. (20Mbps) causing issues with my other queues traffic.

      Any ideas what might be causing this.
      Let me know what other information I can provide to help diagnose the issue.

      Running 2.2-RELEASE (amd64)
      AMD Athlon(tm) 5350 APU
      ![Traffic Graphs.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Traffic Graphs.png)
      ![Traffic Graphs.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Traffic Graphs.png_thumb)
      ![Queues .png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Queues .png)
      ![Queues .png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Queues .png_thumb)

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

        The "Priority" section of the HFSC traffic-shaper is nonfunctional because HFSC has no such parameter.

        The link-share parameter will use all unused bandwidth. Use "upper-limit" to limit link-share's maximum throughput.

        I have no idea about the inaccurate traffic-graph numbers.  ???

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

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DerelictD
          Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
          last edited by

          Those graphs are always wonky.

          I prefer pftop, queue.

          One thing of note is that the graphs are set to display packets per second.  Change it to bandwidth and, as of 2.2, they make more sense.  Actually. looking at it again, it's pretty much worthless.  use pftop, queue.

          Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
          A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10000 words and 15 conference calls.
          DO NOT set a source port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
          Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • C
            chaos777b
            last edited by

            Even using the command pftop -s1 -v queue shows skewed data

            Not really sure how to validate Queues are working correctly with out valid data

            Note the traffic in the P2P queue is limited at the source to 500 KB/s

            … unless i'm reading pftop wrong



            ![pftop -s1 -v queue.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/pftop -s1 -v queue.png)
            ![pftop -s1 -v queue.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/pftop -s1 -v queue.png_thumb)

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

              Try updating to 2.2.1?

              I think I remember a bugfix related to to this.

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

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • C
                chaos777b
                last edited by

                LOL  ;) I should have mention it, I upgraded to 2.2.1 after my first post, delete the existing traffic shaper rules, and re created them

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • First post
                  Last post